hi. my name is kim and i am 41 years old. i've been given the opportunity to work from home, so that means lots of video calls. i see myself more and i definitely see those deeper lines. i'm still kim and i got botox® cosmetic. i wanted to keep the expressions that i would normally have, you know, you're on camera and the only person they can look at is you. i was really happy with the results. i look like me just with fewer lines. botox® cosmetic is fda approved to temporarily make frown lines, crow's feet, and forehead lines look better. the effects of botox® cosmetic may spread hours to weeks after injection, causing serious symptoms. alert your doctor right away as difficulty swallowing,

speaking, breathing, eye problems, or muscle weakness may be a sign of a life-threatening condition. do not receive botox® cosmetic if you have a skin infection. side effects may include allergic reactions, injection site pain, headache, eyebrow, eyelid drooping and eyelid swelling. tell your doctor about your medical history, muscle or nerve conditions, and medications, including botulinum toxins, as these may increase the risk of serious side effects. see for yourself at botoxcosmetic.com. i'm daniel lurie as and i've spent my careerisk of fighting poverty,cts. 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. good evening, once again i'm stephanie ruhle. welcome back to our special coverage on this big breaking news night. today the supreme court heard the arguments in the case that would take donald trump off the 2024 ballot. the justices seem skeptical for the colorado report decision to remove. is our colleague laura jarrett with more. >> it just doesn't seem like a steak. all >> the justices, forced to grapple with mr. trump's

alleged bid but, by pointing to his actions on january six. and the provision in the 14th amendment. that those who engaged in insurrection or rebellion for holding public office again. >> the attack was a sitting president of the united states to disrupt the peaceful transfer of presidential power. all nine justices, both conservative and liberal, appearing to bristle at the -- colorado's argument. >> the question that you have to confront, is why a single state should decide who gets to be president of the united states. that seems quite extraordinary, doesn't it? >> chief justice, john roberts later raising the idea of the 14th amendment being used as a political weapon by democrats and republicans alike. >> it will come down to just a handful of states that are going to decide the presidential election.

that's a pretty daunting consequence. >> mr. trump's lawyer, arguing, congress not state should decide who's eligible for the presidency. and that the former president did not engage in insurrection. >> this was a riot. it was not an insurrection. it was shameful, violent, all those things. but it did not qualify as insurrection. >> let's bring in john allen, international politics reporter for nbc news, katie benner, pulitzer prize-winning reporter for the new york times and -- senior vice -- and former u.s. -- when it came to keeping trump off the spell it? >> i certainly wasn't, surprised that the conservative justice were skeptical of the arguments raised by colorado voters, challenging trump. i was really surprised that the liberal justices, especially ketanji brown jackson jumped on

the attorney arguing, against trump to say, you, know i think that you've got the history. wrong i think you've got the tax. wrong and really embracing one of the most far-reaching legal theories that trump's attorney had put forth to the court. justice jackson gets a lot of flak for the right for allegedly being tobias. or too far for the left. but i think today she really should. she is an independent minded jurist, and of all the justices, nobody else pushed harder to show, or at least to clean that the 14th amendment disqualification clause doesn't even apply to the president. that was her belief, and she really stuck to her guns. so, yeah it was a surprising day. going in i thought 63, maybe 7 to 4. trump now i think 81 or maybe even nine. all >> katie, how about you? is this what you were expecting? >> you know, it's interesting. i like to refer to the point that we just heard about ketanji brown jackson. so it's true that she really

did reiterate this argument that trump's lawyer and made about whether the president counted under the 14th amendment. whether he was an officer who could be taken off of the ballot. and i think this also speaks not just with the justices were thinking about the performance, essentially of the lawyer, mr. mary who was representing the colorado voters. i would say that we all heard a lot of our arguments. i don't know if this is the most confident argument i've ever heard. and it feels like there were tons, all the justices including -- and kagan, who he has quick for. almost frustrated that they weren't able to get straight answers out of. in that he had several points the climb to answer the question that had been asked, wanting to answer something else and bring up a previous point, or a point that he wanted to get to more and even that exchange with jackson, it was hard to tell whether or not it was something you should truly believe, or she felt that this was not a great argument because if you listen to the oral argument with the trump

lawyer with mr. mitchell it was clear that amy coney barrett and others were saying this is a ridiculous arm document. of course it's an officer under the constitution. you can also interpret to mean that she was just trying to get out of him, a potent argument. should shut down this thing, we were just skeptical of. you just, heard many many of the justices again across the spectrum, be skeptical of the argument put forth by trump's lawyer that it doesn't -- because the president isn't explicitly named. and she couldn't even get that out of him i, mean luckily these decisions are not made or arguments, they're made on the fast, they're made on the briefing, they're made on the research that people do. but it was a really interesting performance, i, think by the lawyer representing colorado. >> joyce, now that this hearing is basically out of the way how could that affect the other case that the supreme court could be facing, just days from now. the one for absolute immunity.

>> so, steph, i was the appellate chief in my office before i was the united states attorney and i will tell you that appellate lawyers are a little bit of a breed of hard. they live in rarefied air, especially when you're talking about people who are arguing the supreme court and these cases, these lawyers really do deal in law and they don't deal in politics. and the common place of life. at least not in the normal situation. but this situation is far from normal, that certainly not lost on any of these justices that they're being drawn into a political environment that they do not want to be in. particularly, with all the drama surrounding the court over the last, year all of the ethics challenges, the concern today about justice thomas participating in this case despite his wife's involvement on donald trump's behalf, following the 2020 election. so, lots of reasons for the

justices to minimize their involvement in these cases, involving donald trump. they certainly do not want to be seen as deciding the outcome of the 2024 election in any way. >> john, let's talk about takeaways and misinformation. because, your average american was not listening to the two hours of audio today. but, if you were, you would not have heard any debate, discussion, argument or decision over whether or not donald trump incited an insurrection. everything was about the language of the amendment, what job in government is considered an officer of past cases. but assuming, and i know i'm assuming that the justices side with donald trump, isn't there the risk that the right or it least the trump machine would use this to say, see, he had nothing to do with the insurrection? move on! >> yes, absolutely that risk exists stephanie. and, you are right.

the justices danced around the hope that with the exception of -- danced around the idea of whether this was actually an insurrection. and so yes, if donald trump wins this case, i absolutely expect him to go out and be seen. what my lawyer said is a riot, not an insurrection. so certainly didn't participate in an insurrection. i didn't -- and insurrection. you're gonna hear that from, him 100%. that doesn't mean that the justices need to find in favor of colorado in this, and as some of the other guests of said. i think it would be pretty surprising, at this point, if they did. >> mark, it's good it was only audio. because we do not want to watch any of those justices dance. but, to john's point, it's exactly what they did. they avoided the question of whether donald trump engaged in insurrection. lies that? >> well, i think that's obviously the most controversial and political question embedded in this entire.

case, and there are so many other median legal issues. does this calls cover. the president, is himself executing in states? -- making it one of his little courtroom campaign stops. and, the justices are very cognitive of how all of this place on the news, into the nation. they knew that we would be here talking about their audio, examining and scrutinizing their questions. and, they didn't want the coverage to be about whether this was an insurrection. they wanted to look like nine lawyers, doing kind of dry lawyer stuff. and, to that extent, i think they did succeed. and, i do think that they were on, generally, good behavior. there wasn't the kind of grouchiest or anger that sometimes flashes through the justices and major arguments

like this. you, know they all wanted to get to the bottom of the case. and, they did end up having consensus towards the. and trump will twist that into something that it isn't, ruling for trump does not mean he didn't engage an insurrection. it just means that the theories put forth by colorado voters here didn't cut it at the court. >> joyce, there has been a lot of talk lately, about the quality. the poor quality of donald trump's lawyers. but we did not hear that today. what did you think? >> no, he was capably represented today. and, something that i noticed, and i appreciated was that this was not a lawyer who was pandering to an audience of one. this was a lawyer who conceded arguments, when he didn't have a strong position. he behaved in the way that we assume lawyers would behave when they argue in front of the supreme court. there is nothing more marketable about that. it's only remarkable in the context of donald trump, who does not respect or have any regard for the rule of law.

and he seems to insist that his lawyers, by and large, stand with him and not with their obligation to the court. so, in that sense, at least, this was a refreshing change of events. >> katie, we often say it's so important that the country is able to hear the actual arguments, as opposed to just getting the final decisions. do you believe that's the case in this instance because when you actually listen to this one, it's highly technical. and, your average person, who just wants to tune in, they don't care what they think they're going to. >> you, know it's highly technical, but most legal proceedings will be highly technical in many. points even, though for something like the cross by documents case, it feels very straightforward. did he or did he not keep something he shouldn't have. even in that case, they'll be a lot of technical jargon. what is good about being here with the or argument, especially in this instance is as -- reported, in a year, or more when we had serious questions about the credibility

of the court, et cetera, to hear the justices ask their question, the field that they are putting forth good faith questions, that they are listening with respect nomad or what they're a-ology, no matter what their belief, to hear something like, amy coney barrett was extremely hard on trump's lawyer mitchell. there were times when they can barely musket. she was not buying. it and you really see the law. you hear the law at work. it is not a partisan exercise. it really wasn't today. it was an exercise, getting to the bottom with serious questions. we can debate whether or not they were trying to get to the bottom of the right questions but for the public to hear that i think it's really, really healthy. >> john, last night you said to me how very treacherous this was that it could backfire on democrat. this idea that trying to remove donald trump from the ballot could be seen as highly political. do you think there are any democrats, tonight, that the court system seems skeptical

that colorado should do this? because at the end of the, day they want to see donald trump beaten at the ballot box. no excuses. they don't want to give him a side door. >> absolutely, that is a significant -- with the democrats i've talked, with a look to the officials whether in washington d.c., or the states. they definitely want to see donald trump defeated at the ballot box. and some of them, would like to see him and accountable for what they see as criminal activity, with regards to january six. so that's a different case. and i think that there was a significant ceremony that this will have a backlash effect if trump's kept off the ballot, in certain states. and you, know the problem, and we saw about this a little bit last night, potentially for backlashes you've got the save colorado main not swing states that might keep him off the ballot. and the reaction in the swing states, it's a handful of, states maybe six of them that will decide this election, the reaction from independents from people who don't pay a ton of attention, necessarily to the

system. loose republicans, are loose democrats could be to rally around trump seeing some unfairness in the situation. >> joyce, before i let you guys go, i want to go to something that we were talking about in our last segment. president biden, and his report. i just want to draw a comparison. because in the trump university lawsuit, donald trump sided, memory lapses, 59 times. and in the modern report, different variations of i don't remember, 30 times. but, even beyond president biden and president trump, isn't that what most people say when they're questioned by authorities, i don't know, i don't remember? >> you often see some variation of that. it was very frustrating for me as a prosecutor to learn how many people have really bad memories, by the time they sat down in my office to talk to, me and a couple of fbi agents.

and, look, sometimes our memories do dim with the passage of time. events that happened in the couple of years ago may not standout fresh in the case of joe biden some of these documents have been in his home for many years that we were talking about events that transpired for them five years ago. so even someone young and crisp might not have a fresh recollection. but the standard advice, that the lawyers give their clients is don't try to manufacture a memory. if you don't remember, don't be afraid to say that you don't remember. in some cases, that translates to a built-in defense. where you have a witness, who just consistently says that they don't remember, in order to avoid any possible liability. >> joyce, thank you so much. katie, mark, john thank you also much. of all of that news, there are delegates up for grabs. and in the state of nevada, and the u.s. virgin islands in the race for the republican presidential nomination.

it's like, oh my gosh, more news. donald trump is basically running unopposed in tonight's nevada caucus. and nbc news projects he hasn't even won. my dear friend and colleague, -- joins us live from vegas tonight. ron, everybody else in vegas is gearing up for the super bowl, go into parties, and here you are. >> what are we doing stuff? [laughter] how is it going in vegas tonight, ron? >> i feel like the conversations were going to have over the course of the, year where folks are having fun with their evening. and i'm standing at an event like this. not that this isn't fun, stephanie. let me be clear here, donald trump is going to be taking the stage or in a few minutes, to celebrate his victory here in the nevada caucus. he also won the four delegates, one of the u.s. virgin islands and after tonight he would have secured the 0.8% of the total delegates here so far in

available. here and for donald trump he ran against nobody in this race. it was to lose. he won, all 26 delegates. of course, none of the above on tuesday night beat nikki haley and she took part in the state primary i am told that donald trump did have dinner with -- he will be moving on to south carolina, we'll have a rally on saturday. just outside of myrtle beach. he will then be holding an event later in the week, in south carolina and for donald trump, here, steph, you know it's hard. he uses this nature. it's an opportunity. not only to defend himself legally, but also point to joe biden, who he said is prepared to take on here over the course of the nine months of the general election. >> what we will see, nikki haley, obviously she wasn't on the ballot. what's next for her? >> excuse, me not ball it -- to choose nikki haley in this caucus, my mistake. >> yes, so, the gop, they

wanted to have a caucus. despite a primary putting effect run by the state, the state government. , and the nevada gop, who are close allies are donald trump of course there gop chairman michael macdonnell he is one of the fake electors who was indicted in the state of nevada and the executive nevada of the gop they flew just last month to go meet with donald trump. but where mar-a-lago and they called the caucus sixth of all but rigged in favor of donald trump. and so candidates here are representing the option, to take part in the caucus run by the party or the primary read by the state. all by doing that though come to the party run caucus. nikki haley thought it should be a good headline, by taking part in the primary. and winning the primary willow court she got anything but a good headlight by losing to that of the above. clearly supporters still coming out just for the purpose of fully beating her. we despite donald trump staved off being on the ballot. >> tough night for her.

vaughn hillyard thank you so much, great to see you. and now, i hope you could have a good time in vegas. when we come back, we cover the legal and now it's time for the politics. we're gonna get into today's supreme court hearing, on the special counsel report. with simone thompson -- and, later u.s. funding to ukraine advances in the senate as president zelenskyy fires his top military commander. -- is here to bring that what it all means. special coverage, when the american out -- right after this. american out -- right after this.

it's time to feed the dogs real food, not highly processed pellets. the farmer's dog is fresh food made with whole meat and veggies. it's not dry food. it's not wet food. it's just real food. it's an idea whose time has come. there are some things that work better together.

like your workplace benefits and retirement savings. voya helps you choose the right amounts without over or under investing. so you can feel confident in your financial choices. voya, well planned, well invested, well protected. dealdash.com, online auctions since 2009. this playstation 5 sold for only 50 cents. this ipad pro sold for less than $34. and this nintendo switch, sold for less than $20. go to dealdash.com and see how much you can sa two leading candidates for senate. 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. growing up, my parents wanted me to become a doctor or an engineer.

those are good careers! but i chose a different path. first, as mayor and then in the legislature. i enshrined abortion rights in our california constitution. in the face of trump, i strengthened hate crime laws and lowered the costs for the middle class. now i'm running to bring the fight to congress. you were always stubborn. and on that note, i'm evan low, and i approve this message.

we are still tracking trump's high stake legal battle before the supreme court. so let's bring in simone -- she was the spokesperson for vice president harris. we of course no, her as the co- host of the msnbc morning show, the weekend. and, former republican congressman david jolly of florida. we have a lot to cover, gang. simone, let's talk about today's arguments. what were your biggest takeaways? >> my biggest take away, first and foremost, is that there was great ground for the lawyer who was arguing for the colorado's plaintive standoff. i don't feel as though the lawyer adequately stood on those grounds. i've done a lot of research in the lead up to and there is the federal papers, number 69 hamilton where he rode in the -- he wrote that the president was an officer of the united

states in the last paragraph. if you look at the debate from congress, at the time in the senate in 1866, and the senator's own words, there was much debate about section one of the 14th amendment. the section three was also of good debate. and the question about whether the president and vice president wasn't officer of the court came up. i tweeted about that in this moment, and as soon as i tweeted, it two minutes later, jason murray brought up the argument and then kind of just walked away from. it, so i am not a lawyer stuff. i used to do the talking points for the lawyers. i am very well versed on taking what what the lawyers have to say. taking what the lawyers tell you, and repeating. it and i think that an effective argument, a -- defense about why, what the colorado supreme court came down on the decision that they made was correct was not presented there for the people to see. and i do think the justices were quite tough on all of the

legal counsel's. but the justices usually. our i watch supreme court cases, so i wasn't surprised at the tough questioning. i was surprised that the defense that was brought. fourth and all of the conversations, and interviews, and press calls that the council, the co-counsel for the colorado voters at done in the lead up to and, frankly after because jason marie, who argued that case was on with their colleague. and who were, on earlier today with rachel maddow. and i felt like he made a very effective case in his post interview, not so much during arguments. >> david, what did you think? >> i've always thought that the challenge for the colorado voters has just been too steep of a hill to climb. , and i think it's been a vicious to think that the supreme court, much less any real federal court at this point would grant relief and suggests that state by state, the decision could be made by if it was a supreme court of the state or secretary of state of the court. his state by state, we could

have different rules regarding qualifications or disqualifications of donald trump. on the question of insurrection, and i know that there has been some broad, and really from conservative legal scholars who have suggested, no this makes sense. but it really can't make sense in terms. >> a criminal charge of insurrection, from donald trump, so i've always been a scripted. i think that we are looking at most scholars and observers have said that the colorado voters will ultimately be found to, not be given the relief that they're seeking. to keep donald trump off the ballot. and that's okay. i think there are more arguments of greater merits, then can ultimately bring donald trump, bring down donald trump, this question of whether or not he can be charged in the january six cases. and then they'll go against donald trump. ultimately, the legal system, the broad thing here i think,

steph, is one of delay and latency. why are we even honoring the election with all of these questions not being decided? why has this not occurred earlier? that's a question for the country. >> that's really important. do you believe, when we look back on the, state that there will be a lot of criticism to merrick garland on why are we here? basically, eight months before the next election. , when it didn't mean to be this. long, at one of the biggest issues today was, well, he wasn't charged with insurrection. and that was also the choice of merrick garland. >> absolutely. i. do i, mean i understand that the legal scholars who say he doesn't need to be charged. but let's be practical about. this if you look at the be george decision there are cases of such gravity that the court realized, as you know, what we're just playing referee. and we better be able to back it up but it's hard to backup kicking donald trump off the ballot for insurrection, if in fact he wasn't charged with insurrection in this matter. but the real question of

latency, why has it taken so long? with the department of justice ended up here with that the january six committee of congress? why does it take congress along? why does impeachment actually such a partisan issue? those are hard questions, when you're dealing with such an issue of gravity. the latency, in the system, not only is something that needs to improve but it's also something that a person like donald trump knows how to take advantage of. he is going to do it and, say test me, try me, let's see how long it takes it to hold me accountable. because by, then i might be president again. >> that is exactly the game he is playing. all, right you too, we're not letting you go anywhere. when we come back, we have got to get their thoughts on president biden responding to the special counsel report tonight. when the 11th hour continues. g. when the 11th hour continues. is that didn't get clean? i don't. cascade platinum plus has me doing dishes...differently. scrub, soak? nope. i just scrape, load... and i'm done. platinum plus is cascade's best clean ever.

with double the dawn and double the scrubbers, it removes the toughest grease and food residue for an irresistible clean and shine. rewash? not in my house. upgrade to cascade platinum plus. dare to dish differently.

hey, brent! if you had to choose, upgrade to cascade platinum plus. would you watch paint dry or compare benefits plans? compare benefits. gusto makes it easier to find the right plan for my team. i think i'm going to need new glasses. no problem. you're covered. choose benefits without the mess. every day, more dog people, and more vets are deciding it's time for a fresh approach to pet food. they're quitting the kibble. and kicking the cans. and feeding their dogs dog food that's actually well, food. developed with vets. made from real meat and veggies. portioned for your dog. and delivered right to your door. it's smarter, healthier pet food. get 50% off your first box at thefarmersdog.com/realfood

you're probably not easily persuaded to switch get 50% off your first box mobile providers for your business. but what if we told you it's possible that comcast business mobile can save you up to 75% a year on your wireless bill versus the big three carriers? did we peak your interest? you can get two unlimited lines for just $30 each a month. there are no term contracts or line activation fees. and you can bring your own device. oh, and all on the most reliable 5g mobile network nationwide. wireless that works for you. it's not just possible, it's happening.

>> one of the reasons -- because, in his descriptions you are walberg means elderly man with a core memory. >> i'm well means, an elderly man, and i know what i'm doing. on the president of this country putting it back on its feet. i don't need its recommendation. >> how is your memory? >> my memory is so bad that i let you speak. >> do you believe your memory has gotten worse? >> my memory is not getting worse. my memory is fine. >> president biden striking to find a tone after the release

of the special counsel report, simone thompson -- there still with, us you know this white house. what was your take on their response? we don't see the president, many nights a week come out swinging to an angry and aggressive press corps. but that's what he faced tonight. and he knew that's what he'd be walking into. >> yes, stephanie, this is not a good day for the white house. i always say, that because they were forced off the message. not particularly because the president handled it poorly, or handled it wrong. he decided to hit it head. on, and i think the challenge here for the press is to show us where joe biden has fallen down, in terms of his ability to govern. show us where age has impacted his leadership. because you can't. it hasn't. i would suggest that the white house has an opportunity. and it's an important one. because if there is room for voters to grow more concern about the each question, you really have to redirect us to where it matters. and where it matters, is this. this race in november is not

about age. it's about ideology. and, instead of challenging the, press challenging critics on the presidents age challenge the critics on the ideology of joe biden versus donald. trump who is going to raise up an economy for all people. who's going to protect your franchise and your suffrage? who's going to look out for reproductive freedom? for access to health care? for immigration and border security measures? who is capable of governing in this environment? all you have to do is look at what republicans are doing right now. you could have a 30 year old republican right. now age doesn't matter. ideology does. and joe biden has. it and he's taken the country in the right direction. serve that to the press on the critics and let them swallow it. >> samantha, if you want to make it about, they canceled one another out. you have two elderly men, with the penchant for forgetting things. and donald, trump and joe biden. the differences, as it said in the report, well meaning

elderly gentlemen. is anyone going to make the point that donald trump and his misstatements or actions are well meaning? >> so, let me say two things. first and foremost, the whole reason there was a report in the first place, on the question on the table was, did joe biden do anything inappropriate for which he had classified documents found in his possession, after he was in office. and, the report says, in the first paragraph, no. we are not charging. him, and he did not do anything with being in charge. , and pieces of the report detail, that it was the presidents own personal lawyers who found the documents in the first place called the white house counsel, who, then alerted the archives. all within one day. , so that is what the report was about. what we read in the report, talking about the presidents mental acuity and his age is quantification of the special counsel. what david just said is correct. but let's just be very clear, in terms of trump on the ideology, not the age. they have been fighting donald

trump on the ideology. that's utterly joe biden's entire ethos for why he's getting back into running for reelection. he has been making the very effective case that david, said he should. make which the white house has not done, as take the h question directly to the heart of it day in and day. out in the way in which, that, they and the president brings his democracy message. his message about the accomplishments of the administration. you, know i used to work in this white house. so, i was not surprised by what i saw today. -- -- and they did not get those questions. and then they found out about a last minute press conference. and they were rapid for a lack of a better term. i think that people, who, because we have not had a lot of press conferences from this president, which is just the facts, that is not something that folks who tuned in are used to seeing. but, let's just be very, very clear. her the questions about the presidents age, they are not

made-up. and, at one point they lived in the black corner, the dark corners of the internet. but they have went out of the conservative random theory corners right up into mainstream voters and destroyed, in nebraska wherever democratic voters across the country. and because that is something that voters themselves are bringing up, it is something that the president has to speak to. and i, think if people just watch joe biden it does speak for itself. but the campaign, has to give people the opportunity to see the joe biden that we saw today. >> well that is the, thing questions about joe biden's age are just coming from four corners of conspiracy theories. every day voters all the time to talk about joe biden and donald trump's age. there are scores of public companies that don't allow board members to be over a certain age. it's not a new coptic that comes from a far-reaching place. however the right is going to have a field day with this report. but they can talk about the

report and things that joe biden has said. or they can watch this from donald trump. >> and we did, with obama, we won an election that everyone said couldn't be one. and we have a man that is totally corrupt and the worst president in the history of our country. we would be in world war ii, very quickly if we are going to be relying on this man. they never report to the crime on january six. nikki haley, nikki haley -- nikki haley is in charge of security. we offered her 10,000 people. soldiers. national guards. whatever they want. they turned it down. we had become a dragoons vested crime ridden nation which is capable of solving even the smallest, smallest problems. we are an institute and a powerful death penalty. we will put this on. we have to bring in the death penalty to look at even things

like supply change, things we never even heard about. you never heard that term. >> you're right, i never heard the term supply change. because it doesn't exist. all of that doesn't include the 91 counts against donald trump. so, on what grounds, david jolly, are people saying it's over for joe biden after today? i mean that matchup that we put together, it just took a few minutes. we didn't have to do a lot of digging. >> simply because, age is a bad issue for joe biden to take on directly. it's serious. it is a serious liability. but, that mash-up shows. and i think the opportunity for biden, to respond with the questions of, age is about fitness. , and donald trump did not suggest you should inject bleach into your veins, this a view from covid. because he was old, he did it because he was stupid. he didn't talk that mash-up of all those because of his, age he did it because he's unfit for office. , and that is the clear answer for joe biden. and on questions of age, seriously stuff, show us.

show us where joe biden has proven incapable of governing because of his age. sure, he is older. has he slipped up on an issue that's actually affected his ability to govern? no. you can point to a conservative critic. now, is it on message for joe biden today to be defending his age, first person. i don't think it is. because it feeds into the president's highest negatives. one of its highest. >> but he has to -- i'm sorry david. to be clear, the reason the president went out there and said what he said today, this was the second time he spoke about the report today. the first time he spoke, he was very presidential. he did not speak about the age issue or the mental, any of the. but joe biden -- and his age watch television. and they see the tweets. and every single reporter looked at that special counsel reports that eye right there next to me and all tweeted out the same lines. it was the conversation on television across various cable

networks uncritically environment where the president had to come out and defend himself. and frankly no other democrats need to step up and defend him as well. so there is a -- >> symone, symone -- >> wasn't responsible for people to pick that one piece of the report? i don't think so? >> i understand your position and your craft but they screwed up with the el-sisi reference. he screwed up. he actually showed them again why age doesn't cover his ability to handle that moment but not until government. and that's not my point. he stumbled in that moment. and part, arguably because of age but does that affect his ability to govern? absolutely not. and if he's gonna be the messenger for his team that's the contrast that he is capable of drawing and the american people need to understand. >> all right, david jolly, symone sanders-townsend, thank you so much for being here tonight. when we come back. we have got to talk ukraine.

-- talk ukraine. -- i'm starting to think this was a bad idea. what! we could find a better gift on etsy's new gift mode. oh! can i see that? ♪ happy birthday... ♪ it's a people cake! don't panic. gift easy with gift mode, new on etsy.

sometimes jonah wrestles with falling asleep... ...so he takes zzzquil. the world's #1 sleep aid brand. and wakes up feeling like himself. get the rest to be your best

with non-habit forming zzzquil. ♪ ♪

the two year anniversary of the war in ukraine's fast approaching. and the war is at a very --

with, that i want to bring in retired starchy army veteran of vietnam, and the former bottle -- of so glad to hear. help us understand what do you make of this move from zelenskyy, at this point in the war? >> well, i looked at the ukraine battlefield, it's a real mess. there's been massive casualties, the artillery duel now is going into a direction where ukraine is running out of ammunition and there is a request by the commanding general of ukrainian armed forces for a half million contract to be called up which he didn't think you could do. so he wants to look for a new team. --

>> what do you know about this new military chief? >> he's an older guy, than the current commanding general. he's trained. he's been commander, off the ground forces. he was extremely effective in defending kyiv. and, then we captured and destroyed the russian forces around kharkiv a year later. he has probably shown less creativity and dealing with the russians on the eastern front. so it's not clear to me that he's the new thinker using technology instead of casualties dylan's case looking for. but zelenskyy is that he's gonna put five new general zone to colonels to try to reinvigorate ukraine. the current commander general

was just fired by the way. which is all over nato. saying the war was at a stalemate. things are political problem for zelenskyy. that's another reason, i think, that zelenskyy had spoken. >> so, where do things stand right now in the war? like, how important are these next few months? >> crucial. the united states can get the 50 dollar thousand dollar package through, there's a serious problem. and, having said that nato had stood up to the issue to the european union, 52 billion dollar package coming through. and the european union, alone, has a gdp economy that russia has 15% of that gdp. so europe could shoulder more of the burden. it's clear but without the united state, without our

leadership, without our ammunition, training, involvement, i think ukraine may well collapse. we've got 44 million ukrainians, half of them to be in western europe. and it will be a disaster for the u.s. national security interest. >> well, hopefully, members of congress are listening to. you general, thank you so much for joining us on this late night. general barry mccaffer, we'll be right, back after this. nera be right, back after this. (♪♪) your heart races. (♪♪) your eyes close. (♪♪) and you realize you're in love... steve? with a laundry detergent. gain flings. seriously good scent. and 50% more fresh. now that's love at first sniff.

hey! sarah! if you had to choose would you listen to elevator music all day or deal with payroll compliance? payroll compliance, for sure. gusto automatically calculates and files my taxes for me.

hold up, compliance? easier? choose payroll compliance without the ups and downs. that's working with gusto. ( ♪ ♪ ) start your day with nature made. the #1 pharmacist recommended vitamin and supplement brand.

i got this $1,000 camera for only $41 on dealdash. dealdash.com, online auctions since 2009. this playstation 5 sold for only 50 cents. this ipad pro sold for less than $34. and this nintendo switch, sold for less than $20. i got this kitchenaid stand mixer for only $56. i got this bbq smoker for 26 bucks. and shipping is always free. go to dealdash.com right now and see how much you can save.

okay guys, are you still up with me? i know we say it last around here and it can lose its meaning overtime. , but today, today was one of those days you will remember where you were days. just think about. it the supreme court historic argument, the special counsel's report, that was very difficult for president biden. and that he hit back with the fiery response, tonight it is a lot. and, it can feel exhausting, overwhelming, i hear you.

i feel you. i know it. so, as we close out another one of those days for the history books flip do this one thing together. ready? let's take a deep breath. i certainly know that i needed one. and my team needed one after today. i hope you feel better. i do. just a little bit. and, we will be back here again, tomorrow night at the end of the day. to do it all over again. because i guarantee, it's going to be a whole lot more news, tomorrow. and, on that note i wish you all a very good night. if you're extras sleepy, a little late to work tomorrow, rachel maddow said she will write your boss a note. but until then, from of -- our colleagues -- our colleagues

say for the sake of argument, you engage in insurrection. could you then run for president again? the state of colorado says no. at least not on our ballot. >> i engaged in insurrection against the constitution. president trump, disqualified himself from public office. >> now, the u.s. supreme court will decide. >> we'll hear argument, case 23 7:19, trump versus anderson. >> tonight, donald trump battled to remain on the ballot for the 2024 presidential election. >> for an insurrection, there needs to be an organized concerted effort to overthrow the government of the united states through violence. >> so your point is that a chaotic effort to overthrow the government is not an insurrection? >> the colorado case, it's

national implications. >> the question that you have to confront is why a single state should decide who gets to be president of the united states. >> and, dammed if you do, dammed if you don't predictions of chaos. either way >> members of this course have disagreed about that. >> i'm asking you -- >> tonight, jason, marie appeared live. the lawyer who argued today's case for colorado voters. joy reid, chris hayes, lawrence o'donnell, alex wagner, stephanie ruhle. all here for msnbc's special coverage of the supreme court argument. on the disqualification of donald trump. >> welcome to our primetime breakout of the historic proceedings. i'm rachel maddow, with my colleagues lawrence o'donnell, joy reid, ari melber, and chris hayes. happy to have you all here. no cameras are allowed in federal court rooms, including united states appearing in

court today for the arguments about whether former president trump should be disqualified for office for having engaged in an insurrection against the u.s. government, the justices did allow for the sound of the proceedings'audio to be livestreamed. here on msnbc, we carry the audio of those oral arguments live and in full. starting just after 10 am eastern time. but we also know that most people have lives. and jobs. and school. and other responsibilities that might make it hard for them to take two hours out of a thursday to stare at an audio speak for hours trying to figure out if that was gorsuch or alito yelling at that poor lawyer. so because of that we are here to recap what happened in primetime. in the 1970s, watergate

healings were broadcast during the workday. recognizing how consequential unimportant those were, news networks during that time started recapping each day's watergate hearings at night on tv in primetime so no one would miss out on that incredibly important history in the making. we then did the same. during the daytime hearings of the january six investigation in congress in 2022. we know from what we have heard from you, our beloved viewers, but that was valuable, that was a useful saying. and so here we are, together, again, tonight, with basically the same approach. the united states supreme court is now considering whether the leading candidate for the republican presidential nomination should be banned from running again or potentially might it be okay to allow him to run again to allow him to be on the ballot, to

allow him to compete and potentially even when the election, whereupon only then would he be prohibited from actually taking up the job? now, why would you allow someone to run for an office if they are ineligible to hold that office? i don't know. but for the non lawyers among us, i think we can all take comfort in the fact that that idea sounded just as cockamamie and nuts today at the united states supreme court as it would if you tried to explain to somebody on a street corner. >> i think it would create a number of really difficult issues if the court says there's no procedure for determining president trump's eligibility until after the election. and then what happens when members of congress on january 6th, when they count the electoral votes, say we're not gonna count electoral votes cast for president trump because he's disqualified?

that's a kind of disenfranchisement and constitutional crisis in the making. and all more reason to address these issues now on a full evidentiary record so everyone can have certainty before they go to the polls. >> if we think that the states can't enforce this provision, for whatever reason, in this context, in the presidential context, what happens next in this case? i mean, is it done? >> if this court concludes that colorado did not have the authority to exclude president trump from the presidential ballot on procedural grounds, i think this case would be done, but i think it could come back with a vengeance because ultimately members of congress may have to make the determination after a presidential election if president trump wins about whether or not he's disqualified from office and whether to count votes cast for

him. >> if he might be ineligible to hold office in the united states. but states aren't allowed to keep him off the ballot. then how does the constitution's ban on insurrectionists holding office getting forced? just think about it logically. if states can't enforce it by keeping people off the ballot before the election, then congress would have to enforce the ban after the election. this would mean congress would have to decide after the election but before inauguration on, say, january six, 2025? they would have to decide then and they are whether they're going to count electoral votes for trump or not, based on whether or not congress believes, at that point, the trump is eligible or ineligible for office, depending on whether in their infinite wisdom, congress thinks he engaged in insurrection the last time around. congress will just work it out in congress, on the spot, on january 6th itself. what could possibly go wrong?

you just heard jason murray there, who did most of the arguing today for the plaintiffs, who was successfully sued in colorado for keeping trump off the ballot. we're gonna speaking live with him tonight. but that same point of boathouse stranger would be to do what trump's lawyers propose, two to decide whether he's eligible to be president until after he has potentially been elected president. that same argument was made in a different way by the second lawyer, the colorado's solicitor general who today also defended colorado taking trump off the ballot. >> the petitioner contends that colorado must put him on the ballot because of the possibility there would be a supermajority act of congress to remove his legal disability. under this theory, colorado and every other state would have to indulge this possibility, not just for the primary, but through the general election and up to the moment that an

ineligible cabinet was sworn into office. >> in other words, do not make us do this. in other words, do justices, rule that he's eligible, rule that he's ineligible, but do not force the situation in which he must be allowed to run but he might not be allowed to serve if he's elected. if you thought last year six was bad, wait to see what you would unleash for the next one if we followed this course. his chief justice john roberts today. >> counsel, what if somebody came in to a state secretary of state's office and said, i took the oath specified in specifiedi

section three, 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 are

disqualified? >> no, the secretary of state could not do that consistent -- with because even if the candidate is an admitted insurrectionist, section 3 still allows the candidate to run for office and even win election to office and see whether congress lists that. >> even though it's unlikely or difficult for individual says you know, i am an insurrectionist and i have taken the oath, that would require two thirds of votes in congress. that's some pretty likely

scenario. a >> pretty unlikely scenario. that's 0. 1 from today's supreme court arguments. the proposed remedy here from trump side with congress has to in force the ban on insurrectionists serving in office, that ban can only be enforced after the election, that trump has to be allowed to run even though he might not be allowed to actually serve if he wins. the practicalities of that,

what that might mean for the country, those implications that are both bizarre and daunting, is described by lawyers in the case today, i think that's point number one. now let's talk about a second fundamental point that didn't necessarily go as expected

today at the court. it's that the very basic question of whether or not former president trump did engage in an insurrection. everybody knew this was going to be something that was going to have to come up today. but there is less discussion on this point today than many observers expected. what they had was punchy.

let's start with justice ketanji brown jackson in jonathan mitchell, the lawyer who today argued former president trump. ormer president trump. >> we colorado supreme court concluded that the violent attempts of the petitioner supporters in this case on january six qualified as an insurrection, as by section three, and i read your opening brief to accept that those events counted as an insurrection, but danya reply seemed to suggest that they were not. what is your position as to? that >> we never accepted or conceded in the brief that this was an insurrection. what we said in the opening

brief was that president trump did not engage in any act that could be characterized as such. >> your argument that it is -- your reply brief says it was not because i think you say it did not involve an organized attempt to overthrow the government. >> that's one of many regions, for an insurrection, there needs to be in organized, concerted effort to overthrow the government of the u.s. through violence. >> a chaotic effort to overthrow the government is not an effort? >> we did not concede that it was an effort to overthrow the government either, justice jackson. none of the criteria is met. it was a riot, not an insurrection. the violence was shameful, all those things, but it did not qualify as an extortion, as the term was used in section three. >> thanks. if it was chaotic, it was not an insurrection. the way you can tell us something is an instruction because they march in lines, part of what does a little right after the with anything?

justice brett kavanaugh elicited some of the strongest push at this point, the point of whether this was an insurrection and the implications of that. he elicited some of the strongest pushback on that today from jason murray, one of the lawyers in colorado. >> in trying to figure out what section three means to the extent of its elusive language or vague language. what about the idea that you should think about democracy, think about the right of the people to elect candidates of their choice, of letting the people decide. your position has the effect of disenfranchising voters to a significant degree. what about the background principle, if you'd agree on -- >> a good like to make three points of that, justice

kavanaugh. the first is that constitutional safeguards, but for the purpose of safeguarding our democracy, not just for the next election cycle but for generations to come. second, section three is designed to protect our democracy in that very way. the framers of section three new from painful experience that those who violently expose their oath to the constitution cannot be trusted with our whole power again, because they could dismantle our constitution of democracy from within. they have created a democratic safety valve. president biden can go asparagus for amnesty vote, but unless he does, that -- from insurrectionists. third, this case illustrates the danger of refusing to apply

section three as we're in, because the reason that we are here is that president trump tried to disenfranchise 80 million americans who voted against him, and the constitution is not required that he be given another chance. >> thank you. >> the constitution does not require that he be given another chance. the constitution protects us from insurrectionists. so, we'll talk tonight about the justices, discussing what it would mean to prosecute trump federally for the crime of insurrection, rather than having adjudicated, for example, in a colorado trial court. we'll talk about the justice system debating trump's lawyers claims that he is the only former u.s. president who can't be banned from office for committing insurrection. all the others would be banned from office for committing insurrection but trump, personally, can't. we are going to talk about the justices asking why one state should be able to do something this consequential, something when the contestants went out

like cannibals, but the answers were pretty good. we have a lot to talk about tonight, but let's start with these first couple of takeaways here. was this an insurrection, and if there is a ban in the constitution on insurrectionists holding office, but you can't enforce it by preventing an eligible candidates from running for office, then how exactly does that ban get enforced? our email burr, you are in the room today, when it happened. you are there for the arguments. first of all, let me ask you to critique my summary. the tickets for it to pull out those points as some of the pillars on which this argument was held up? >> i think it's very fair. it's the first time that we have seen the actions of the insurrectionists discussed by the supreme court. >> in terms of the argument about -- on the point of insurrection, i felt like i was going to be here a lot today

about what counts as an insurrection, that snuck from justice jackson was priceless, but we did not hear a lot of substantive other discussion about what it takes to call something an instruction. does that tell us something important about where they just see their sort of, the edge of their job description here, in terms of what they ought to consider? >> it also speaks to how bipartisan this was, if you go by the differences disappointed by different parties, based on the questioning, which is all we have to go on, i would give you eight or nine votes likely against the colorado trump a ballot ban. that's not because all eight or nine at the people or soft an insurrection. an insurrection. (snoring) if you struggle with cpap... you should check out inspire.

honey? inspire. sleep apnea innovation. learn more and view important safety information at inspiresleep.com covid-19? i'm not waiting. if it's covid, paxlovid. paxlovid is an oral treatment for adults with mild-to-moderate covid-19 and a high-risk factor for it becoming severe. it does not prevent covid-19. my symptoms are mild now, but i'm not risking it. if it's covid, paxlovid. paxlovid must be taken within the first five days of symptoms, and helps stop the virus from multiplying in your body. taking paxlovid with certain medicines can lead to serious or life-threatening side effects or affect how it or other medicines work, including hormonal birth control. it's critical to tell your doctor about all the medicines you take because certain tests or changes in their dosage may be needed. tell your doctor if you have kidney or liver problems, hiv-1, are or plan to become pregnant, or breastfeed. don't take paxlovid if you're allergic to nirmatrelvir, ritonavir, or any of its ingredients. serious side effects can include allergic reactions, some severe like anaphylaxis, and liver problems.

these are not all the possible side effects so talk to your doctor. if it's covid, paxlovid. ask your doctor today.

i think he's having a midlife crisis i'm not. you got us t-mobile home internet lite. after a week of streaming they knocked us down... ...to dial up speeds. like from the 90s. great times. all i can do say is that my life is pre-- i like watching the puddles gather rain. -hey, your mom and i procreated to that song. oh, ew! i think you've said enough. why don't we just switch to xfinity like everyone else? then you would know what year it was. i know what year it is.

it's because the things that you race, and we heard some of the questioning about. i'll give you a detailed legal answer if you want, but i'll start with something simple, which is, it was clear by the end of the argument that most of these people do not want to go near ballot bands. the reasoning came second. it was more honest than usual, they said we don't want to do this. we don't want to cosign this. how do we get out? i would liken it to, if anyone at a destination wedding invite that they are not excited about. these people used to know better, for a while back, and it's in antarctica, and our first like, look, straight up, that is far away, i heard it is cold weather. also, i think it's expensive. tickets, are barnstorming all you can go. >> sore back -- >> how close are we?

any of those things might also be true, and someone then my come to you and say, there's a supercell, because not many people want to go to antarctica. even if it was not the ticket, there are other reasons. that's what it felt like to me. so, if you're looking for this to be the case that stops trump, i would tell you -- not you, i mean the viewer, anyone listening, the citizen. if you're thinking, this the courts to work on a nonpartisan basis, in some ways, we saw that answered with how much it was like that. they then jump and briefly to your legal question. the big thing was, even if it is an insurrection or something that should be kicked off the ballot for, who decides that? is it just a random secretary of state in one state, and we have a lot of different types of ways that we pick secretary of states, they vary in partisanship? is it the justices at the state, and chief roberts put it, as blunt as he could, not talking law or attacks but he said, only, if we did allow this, other states would punch

back. if we get them the power and say, any state can do this, then they all will be knocking each other on the ballot. let me tell you, rachel -- >> justice roberts raised that issue, in other justice raise that issue as well. good answers from the issue from the lawyers representing colorado. >> a very substantive answer, which is that there was an insurrection televised. there is only one people that called them to town. i even had insurrectionists popping up everywhere, it's not factually true. the courts concerned about, that which i think includes -- >> i think justice jackson was a biden appointee, well versed on how they tried to stop at then-president biden from coming into office. i don't think he is minimizing an insurrection, i think her point is, yes, we will still run into who can resolve that. you can be factually right but still have an arms race across the states, and that is a concern for the court. this became -- if i was going

to bottom line it legally, this became a debate about the remedy, that they should be dealt with in some other part of government. the problem is you. >> let me stick on that for a second, already, because we're talk in more detail about the parade. what if a state can take a person on the ballot, what would that mean. there would be retaliation, there would be unreasonable actions taken by other states to take other people off the ball. we'll talk about that a little bit, but on this issue of whether or not the states to this or somebody else does, we also got a parade of horses today about what happens with the state does not do it. if there is a ban -- and it can't be enforced by the states, then asked to be enforced by congress, which is inviting another january 6th disaster. that is the rejoin or, it's one way or the other. you may not like the states doing, but they don't do it, the caucus will have to do it.

that will be a disaster to. we've seen that before. >> the sound like a lawyer, i think that is a non frivolous point, a legitimate point. we saw in the oral argument, you're offering chaos, i see you with chaos. >> that the, duthie don't. >> there's a saying in the law about constitutional hardball. this is beyond hardball, this is constitutional fragrant fouls or constitutional violence, whatever you want to call. trump and his fans, he is now convicted fence, not convicted of sedition charges with the, he was for something else, but his fans and people he summoned, many convicted of sedition, they had no sparked this back and forth. well here as you mentioned, with a lawyer later tonight, who mentioned having gone down the road, there needs to be strong remedies pushed back. having said that though, i think that the justices, including the democratic appointees basically said, yes, but not at the state level. figure out some other bar and what you are proposing at the end of the argument here doesn't scary, let's point on that for now. our special coverage of today's historic supreme court hearing,

it's just getting started. still to join us, as ari mentioned, the attorney for the california voters in this case, who argue today in the court, to summer it would be with us live, stay with us. >> states had the power to ensure that their citizens electoral votes or not we state on a candidate who is constitutionally barred from holding office. states are allowed to safeguard their ballots by excluding those who are under age, foreign born, for a third presidential term or as here, those who have engaged in insurrection against the constitution in violation of the oath. i welcome the courts questions. justice alito? is there any history of state to c-section three as a way to bar federal officeholders? >> not that i am aware of, i welcome the courts questions. justice alito. >> not that i am aware of, this is toledo. nope, this is not before, i wonder why that is. welcome back to our primetime recap of today's supreme court proceedings, on whether former president donald trump is eligible or ineligible to ever again stand for office in the united states, after what happened the last time. what you just heard there was a nice short jab from conservative justice samuel

alito, answered by president trump's lawyer jonathan mitchell today. the real rejoinder to what -- excuse me, what justice alito was asking there came if you minutes later, from a lawyer on the other side. the lawyer for a lot of voters, it's a summary, in a back and forth with chief justice john roberts, in which the chief justice essentially says that the lawyer, hey, this is crazy that we had to decide something like this, isn't it? the lawyer response, yes, it's crazy, but the reason it's crazy because they're running a guy as candidate for president who just recently told his fans to overthrow the u.s. government. yes, and that is crazy. that has never happened in the country before at least since the civil war. yeah, it's crazy, and, yeah, you do have to put up with it. listen. >> counselor, what do you do with -- the consequences of your position. if colorado's position is upheld, surely, there will be disqualification proceedings on the other side and some of those will succeed. some will have different

standards or proof. some will have different rules of evidence. although, my predictions have never been correct. i would expect that a good number of states will say, whoever the democratic candidate is, you're off the ball and, others, four republican candidate, you're off the ball. it will come down to the handful of states to decide the presidential election. that will be a daunting consequence. >> certainly, your honor, the fact that there is potential frivolous applications of a constitutional provision does not reason -- >> you might think that they are frivolous, but the people bringing them may not think it is frivolous. insurrection is a broad term, and if there is some debate about it, i suppose that will go the decision and then, eventually, what we will be deciding, whether it was an insurrection, where they're

when president did something, as opposed to somebody doing something else. when we do, do we wait until near the time of counting the ballots and go through which states are valid and which states aren't? >> there's a reason section three has been dormant for 150 years, because we have not seen anything like a january six since reconstruction. insurrection against the constitution something extraordinary. >> it seems to me you're voting the question which is that other states may have different views about what constitutes insurrection. now you say, it's all right, because somebody, presumably us, will decide, they thought that was an instruction, but there are wrong. maybe they thought it was right, and we had to develop rules for what constitutes an insurrection. >> yes, your honor, just like this court interprets other constitutional provisions, this court can make clear that an insurrection against the constitution is something

extraordinary. in particular, it really requires a concerted group effort to resist the violence, not some ordinary application of state or federal law. >> councillor, you're saying that someone, presumably us, would have to develop rules for what constitutes an insurrection? unfortunately, yes, sir, we have come to that moment in u. s. history. yeah, we will need to have some rules around this. joy reid, i don't think anybody thinks that the colorado petitioners are going to get their way from the supreme court today, but some of these questions, the way that they were raised and the way that the lawyers had to say, the

supreme court justices, we're sorry we're here, but we are here. it's really striking. >> it's not like it's every day that people try to overthrow the government. to that question, you actually have some facts around which to organize an attempt to throw a random democrat off at the ballot in the republican state. it's not like you can just do it. let's just review the record here. donald trump was not just declared an insurrectionist because the democrats of colorado were mad. a bunch of republican practitioners took this case to court. there was an actual trial, at

which data thurmond and adjudicated based on republican petitioners, saying he tried to be an insurrectionist. fact number two, he was impeached, specifically, according to him, for supporting an insurrection. there are plenty of facts on the table that say that the point of what they are saying, with just a riot, it was not a right for no reason, because the people were not having a good day. it was a right to attempt to replace the winner of the presidential election with the loser of the presidential election, thereby to replace the government that was supposed to take effect would a government that was over. by definition, that was attempting to pull an insurrection and replace the government. i thought some of the arguments were so circular, and the idea that they can't adjudicate,

can't make a decision here out of the fear, at some point in the future, democratic states with ten -- republican states with then tried to say that different person wasn't insurrectionists, based on some of those facts, all of dozens happen, yeah, there would be an insurrection. >> again, alex, out but the state you. thank you for joining us. >> it's good to be here. this is something that was raised by both liberal and conservative justices today. the idea that if colorado done the whole thing, trump then, other states might retaliate by doing this in unfair ways to other candidates. the reply to that is, yes, you can also bring frivolous and malicious prospect actions if you ever get caught for anything in the criminal law. the idea is that our systems exists. the structure of government and testing exist in the courts, and, therefore, if somebody is going to unfairly retaliate or retaliate not based on the fact

pattern that joyce is describing, then we catch that and we let it go through. right? >> well, here is what i will say. i think it's farfetched to suggest that all of the sudden, this will lead to a spate of efforts to get joe biden off of the ball in red states, but i do think there is -- what did alito call it, manageable consequences? imagine, forget your biden, a match and you have a bunch of red states where donald trump placed on the ball and a bunch of boost eight for donald trump is oft about, that in and of itself is problematic. i don't even have to game out the scenario whereby biden is the victim of some -- related to this decision. you have to work out a scenario where donald trump's name does not appear on all the ballots in the united states. it's a huge problem. >> that is a problem that happens for third party candidates. there are candidates running as a third party, who get on the ballot in some states. it's a quantitative matter, not a qualitative matter. major party candidates don't tend to have that problem, but

each state's ballot looks different. >> i am not arguing that that should be the reason for what they decide, but it seems really clear, as one person, among many, who sat looking, watching a blank screen -- >> stared at a speaker. >> all of these justices seem very much less concerned with the textural interpretation, the originalism at the constitution and much more concerned roundly about the political reality that is ahead of them. to the degree that they may say it's not up to states to decide that this congress or the federal judicial system needs to decide this, in which case, you will inevitably have a lawsuit in the federal courts on the same day in store order. >> isn't that a consequence of the actual fact that our elections are decided by the states, that's actually the system. the states get to decide the election. to get the side who qualifies for their state. that is the system, so try to say that because states decide, and what you had to do essentially disenfranchise, right, all of the states where

trump won the electoral college in that state, on january six, 2025, i say, oh, guess what, he's not getting a waiver. who's getting two thirds of a vote in the house of representatives to get a ways waiver. you're saying let the people go vote for trump, go to 2025 -- >> but they are not going to use that. clearly, they are not going to do that. >> it's absurd. >> i would say that there is a real weird thing -- part of what was weird about today is that there is a sort of calvin ball that conservatives play with, their methodology on this court, which is a day left actualize mix-up when they don't need it. >> exactly. >> actual sum is like, look, we have our personal policy preferences, have outcomes that we want, we kept thinking about outcomes, we are debate looking ahead. the text tells us that everyone can have a gun in every public space of america in the year 2023, per ruin, and that's what we got to do. yes, if you got a kindergarten- er, walking around, you're like, sorry, that is constitutional demands. yes, there are pragmatic concerns that we should not do that. sorry, can't do it. so they do that, when they like the outcome, and then the moment they don't like the outcome, they just struck it over, and we also took over the

textualists today. i guess the weird thing that i want to say, the sort of pop on the other side of the hypocrisy is, personally, i am not excellence, and i think pragmatic considerations are a- ok to think about. actually, that is how we should be thinking about the constitution. i am a legal realness, and i think pollsters for -- richard posner, the judge who talked about this pragmatism. all of these pragmatic questions struck me as perfectly legitimate. the other thing -- to your point, joy, they are all apostates deciding to snuff. >> that's right. >> except in two places, bush v. gore, where the couldn't ratify, because the override it -- >> that's. right >> now, here, what are you talking, about states. >> state rights? >> we're going to let states do it? >> by the way -- >> i think we are. keep doing that, not to abortion. they literally said the opposite. sorry, still to come, we got a lot more from today's supreme court hearing, including, the very, very poignant and -- moment where the lawyer for the pontiff's took a question from his old boss, no gorsuch. >> do you agree that the states powers here over its ballots for federal office or an election have to come from some constitution? >> members of the score of disagreed about that. >> i am asking you. asking you.

i told myself i was ok with my moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis symptoms. with my psoriatic arthritis symptoms. but just ok isn't ok. and i was done settling. if you still have symptoms after a tnf blocker like humira or enbrel, rinvoq is different and may help. rinvoq is a once-daily pill that can rapidly relieve joint pain, stiffness, and swelling in ra and psa. relieve fatigue for some... and stop joint damage. and in psa, can leave skin clear or almost clear. rinvoq can lower your ability to fight infections, including tb. serious infections and blood clots, some fatal; cancers, including lymphoma and skin; heart attack, stroke, and gi tears occurred. people 50 and older with a heart disease risk factor have an increased risk of death. serious allergic reactions can occur. tell your doctor if you are or may become pregnant. done settling? ask your rheumatologist for rinvoq.

and take back what's yours. abbvie could help you save.

i'm kareem abdul-jabbar. i was diagnosed with afib. and take back what's yours. when i first noticed symptoms, which kept coming and going, i should have gone to the doctor. instead, i tried to let it pass. if you experience irregular heartbeat, heart racing, chest pain, shortness of breath, fatigue, or light-headedness, you should talk to your doctor. afib increases the risk of stroke about 5 times. when it comes to your health, this is no time to wait. sleep more deeply. and wake up rejuvenated. purple mattresses exclusive gelflex grid draws away heat relieves pressure and instantly adapts. sleep better. live purple.

right now save up to $800 off mattress sets during purple's president's day sale. visit purple.com or a store near you. (♪♪) we come from a long line of cowboys. (♪♪) when i see all of us out here on this ranch, i see how far our legacy can go. (♪♪) your record label is taking off. but so is your sound engineer. you need to hire. i need indeed. indeed you do. indeed instant match instantly delivers quality candidates

matching your job description. visit indeed.com/hire >> mr. chief justice, and may it please the court, we are here because for the first time since the war of 1812, our nation's capital came under a 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 power. by engaging an insurrection against the constitution, president trump is disqualified

himself from public office. as we heard earlier, president trump's main argument is that this court should create a special exemption to section 3 that would apply to him and to him alone. he says section 3 disqualifies all oath breaking insurrectionists except a former president who never before held other state or federal office. there is no possible rationale for such an exemption. the court should reject the claim that the framers made an extraordinary mistake. >> did the framers make an extraordinary mistake? welcome back to our primetime recap of the u.s. supreme's deliberations today, their oral arguments today over whether or not former president donald trump should be disqualified from standing for office. jason murray is a denver-based lawyer whose argument helped convince the colorado state

court that trump should be disqualified from colorado's ballot. today mr. marie made his debut, representing six colorado voters who brought the challenge to trump's eligibility. in addition to more than a decade as a trial lawyer mr. murray has worked closely with two of the justices up there today. he worked for justice neil gorsuch when justice gorsuch sat on u.s. court of appeals. he also clerked for justice elena kagan at the u.s. supreme court. mr. murray appeared before those justices in a different capacity, making the case to them that the ruling he wanted in colorado should stand, a donald trump should not be allowed on the colorado ballot. joining us now, after a very long very stressful day, mr. jason murray. mr. murray, congratulations on your appearance of the court. >> thank you so much. and i appreciate you having me

on. >> i know that this was not your first time in that courtroom, and you are very familiar with supreme court procedure, and you seen a lot of lawyers step up to the podium today. how was it for you to do it for the first time? >> certainly a source of pride for me to get to argue in the supreme court for the first time and also to be able to appear before my former bosses. >> in terms of how things went today, i don't think it's going to come as a surprise to you for me to tell you that most observers think that the case is not going your way. most observers think that president trump will be allowed on the ballot, that colorado's decision to take him off the ballot will effectively be overturned by this court. i have to ask if you share that common wisdom, if you feel like you have a sense of where the justices are going after what he went through in court today.

>> i won't sugarcoat it. it seemed like the justices were asking difficult questions, mostly procedural questions, about whether the states had the ability to enforce section three of the 14th amendment. i will say we got a lot of really difficult questions of the colorado supreme court as well. and when the colorado supreme court sat down to right their opinion, they realized we were right on the legal issues. we hope that hope that is the court gets deeper into the legal issues here they will realize that the law and the history is clearly on our side here. but certainly they did have hard questions today. i don't think the court would decide a hard case like this without asking hard questions. >> let me ask you to go back into one of the questions on which i think you got some of

the hardest questions, at least i'm not a lawyer, islay of server, and i think some of the journalism has seen people reflect on some very hard questions on whether or not colorado is an individual state or indeed any other state should have a role that moving directly but would effectively remove a presidential candidate from consideration by the voters of the whole country. that issue, that prospect was raised a few different ways by the justices today. i wonder if you would take it holistically and address that criticism of the take that colorado supreme court, and your clients, brought to the court today. >> it's an important question. i think it's based on a misunderstanding. we weren't here today to ask the supreme court to allow colorado to decide these issues for the nation. we were asking the u.s. supreme court to decide, as a matter of constitutional law, whether donald trump is eligible to be

president again based on his own conduct of engaging in insurrection. that isn't a political question for a state to decide. that is a legal question for the court to decide. and although the case came up through a state court, many important cases of federal law, federal constitutional law, come up through state courts. but once they are at the u.s. supreme court, it is for this court to make the final decision that will govern for the whole country about the constitutional eligibility of the candidate. that was the case we were trying to make today. >> i jason, ari melber here. congratulations to you one of the lawyers today. when the most difficult things to do is to be in that bench with nine justices. so congratulations to all of you. two questions. i don't know if you want to answer both of them.

but given what he went through today, the whole thing is so fast and complex, is there any part where you would want to do it over or exchange remarks or build on an answer, because that can happen in any part of life. i'm curious if that happened at all, and would you share that with us. and second, we discussed today on this panel, and it was clear in the courtroom, that there was bipartisan skepticism about one of your key points, which is that the insurrection was this unique and rare event, and i wonder, is there a way that through your arguments that the brief that sometimes matters more than the oral argument that you could better to phrase it differently to a different legal stand-alone insurrection is one you know what when you see it and we're not going to have a ton of frivolous made up insurrection claims if some bananas official or some bananas stayed says biden did insurrection when he gave an interview.

and we were like yeah, that was a different than the live tv documented insurrection when that we lived through. you know it when we see it. >> absolutely. let me take the first point. i wouldn't characterize it as someone as a do-over as a fact that there are a lot of questions asked where i get ten words in before i get another question, and wouldn't have so much of a chance to respond. one thing i would like to emphasize now, because we didn't come up with so much an argument, is just how clear the evidence was and how lucid the colorado supreme court's factual findings here were on the fact that president trump engaged in an insurrection against the constitution. it's not a secretive thing that relies on dubious witness testimony. this was in plain sight for everybody to see. we saw the tweets. we saw his words. we saw his campaign manager the day of, his former campaign manager, call this a sitting president asking for a civil war. we saw that even after the capitol came under violent attack, members of the mob were chanting hang mike pence, president trump or more fuel on the fire on twitter by putting a target on the back of vice president pence and egging the attacking mob on. we saw his tweets at the end, where he praised the attackers and justify their actions, saying these are the things that happen when an election is

stolen. his case isn't close to a virtual confession of intent to incite insurrection you can possibly get. and so i thought that some of the discussion about, well maybe one state will have one evidentiary record, another state will have another, didn't fully engage with that central point. >> i was gonna ask you to remind me what your second question was because now i have forgotten. it >> insurrection, do you know it when you see it? >> i think it's more than that. the history is really clear on what an insurrection. isn't insurrection is more than a protest gone. wrong and insurrection is more than a riot. in insurrection is a coordinated attack for the purpose of resisting execution of law by force. and section 3 requires an insurrection against the constitution. and that hasn't happened since the civil war. because here an insurrection against the constitution requires that you are attacking a function mandated by the constitution, not just an ordinary law. into here we have an attack on congress's constitutional duty to certify the presidential election results.

so hypotheticals about the idea that estate might misuse section three to go after their political opponents, i think just misses the point. you can always have frivolous applications of law, frivolous cases that are factually and legally baseless, and we trust that our justice system will put an end to them by saying this is baseless. i don't see why section 3 should be any different. >> i jason, it's joy reid. as a product of denver public schools, i will congratulate you and steve collateral for making history. justice clarence thomas, he didn't ask a lot of questions, obviously yes the first question is he's the senior justice. but there was one point where he was pretty animated with you. there is some irony, and i'll just say this myself, that his wife, her relationship with the insurrection i found ironic when listening to him speak. it was a point at which he talked about the plethora of confederates still around after the civil war. there are any number of people who can continue to run for state office so it would seem, he said, that that would suggest that there would at least be a few examples of

national candidates being disqualified if your reading is correct. there was a lot of engagement with you on this question. if this is such an obvious point, in section three is self executing, why aren't there other cases that we can cite where insurrectionists were disqualified in the way that you are arguing donald trump should be disqualified. i would love for you to say more on that. if we could have a longer exchange, what more would you say? >> one of the extraordinary things about this case is that we have about 50 professors of history who are the leading scholars in civil war reconstruction file briefs on our side in this case. they explained that history. they said that immediately after, before the amendment was ratified, and even before, congress was flooded by requests for amnesty from people who knew they would otherwise lose their jobs and be kicked out of office. the union army was evicting hundreds of people on a weekly basis for officers in the south that they were ineligible to hold. and we had a number of state court cases where state courts

were determining eligibility under section three. i took it what justice thomas was asking with something much more narrower than that broad question, which is, where states ever trying to restrict federal officials from taking federal office? ? and the answer is no. but that's because of how balance work differently. biden states have power to run elections in control the ballots. that's incredibly clear from article two of the constitution. and the difference is that back then states didn't write the ballots. they didn't run the ballots. essentially everyone was a write-in candidate. so the only way that federal officer who was elected like a member of congress would have their eligibility determined is after the election when they came to congress and said i one and then congress decide whether to seat them. but history doesn't answer the question here because nail states are using that power to do ballot access determinations and so then you have to ask, well, if states can exclude a person who's not a natural born

citizen, or person who's under age for the presidential ballot, which they've been doing for many decades, why can't they exclude an oath breaking insurrectionist? >> jason murray, the lawyer representing colorado voters, defending that decision today at the united states supreme court, a big stage for your first time ever before the supreme court. i know that there's pride that goes with it, but i hope you get some rest thereafter and that the adrenaline come down is not too painful. >> thank you so much. i appreciate that. >> all right. good luck. much more to come in our coverage of the supreme court hearing today over whether donald trump is disqualified from the ballot. first, a moment for the named plaintiff in this case, whose lawyer we just met, she is 91- year-old colorado republican norma anderson. >> this is very personal to me. i've 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. if t