jonathan mitchell, who was representing donald trump, you had a pretty easy time.ed, we even justices from the left side seem to be willing to understand where he was coming from. it was a combination of the practicalities of the situation, just as alina kegan said, you want one state dictate what's going to happen nationally. this seems like an awfully national question that we're wrestling with here. also, the history of the 14th amendment section three, they don't seem to buy the argument that somehow it would include donald trump on ballots. perhaps because congress needs to authorize legislation, perhaps because the terms the amendment don't cover donald trump. one way or another we could almost get to nine votes to reverse the supreme court. >> both of them the bush speak or cases. we know atmospherically it is interesting, when you say that it is different you meant that because of bush v gore it was clear that there are four dust justices who could support the florida supreme court one way and five who -- you are saying this time it's more unanimous. but at

let's not forget who jonathan mitchell is. is the former texas solicitor general who is most famous for inventing taxes's sb8, the bounty hunter law that allows people to pursue abortion providers that effectively overruled roe v. wade before the supreme court overruled roe v. wade. that is the guy the trump campaign dragged out to make the argument that he should stay on the valid. and that is the guy that apparently all nine justices found a way to agree with yesterday. amy: i also want to ask about the line of questioning of justice contagion brown jackson -- ketanji brown jackson and the whole issue of what it means to be an officer in the 14th amendment. also talk about the history of this case, why colorado going back to the civil war, what it means for an insurrectionist to run for office. >> this is a double-edged sword of justice jackson. she is fantastic, amazingly smart. and she is an originalist, a liberal version of those words. but she is the person who kind of goes toe to toe with neil gorsuch whenever they want

i know that terminology is something jonathan mitchell steered away from.this idea that congress has to get involved. in the absence of congressional legislation the states are powerless to act. >> to chuck rosenberg's point, this court, and particularly justice roberts with all the controversy and criticism of this court would be very much interested in coming down with a less political, less divided decision on this case. everybody stay here, stick around, ana, jose, chuck, and andrew, and all of our great help here. we'll be back after a quick break with more special coverage of the united states supreme court, the trump ballot battle. when we come back. when we comk with nurtec odt, i can treat a migraine when it strikes and prevent migraine attacks, 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. ask about nurtec odt. you know, when i take the bike out like this, all my stresses just melt away. i hear that. this bad boy can fix anythi

and then jonathan mitchell is very well-known to these justices. you know, is a conservative crusader, a former law clerk to antonin scalia who is the patron saint of conservatives still on the bench. jason murray also was a law clerk to justice elena kagan who is sitting in earlier to appellate court neil gorsuch on the court. they're known to the justices, just have not argued before the nine, dana. >> thank you. we appreciate it. >>> south carolina is set to deliver joe biden his first official victory of the 2024 campaign, but does he have the key support such as with black voters that propelled him to the nomination in 2020? that's coming up. >>> president biden is ready to claim his first official primary victory tomorrow when south carolina democrats go to the polls. the palmetto state delivered biden his first win back in 2020 and set him on the path to win the white house. this time the president isn't facing a competitive primary. still, a large margin of victory could help jump start the president's reelection campaign as certainly that'

even the exception that jonathan mitchell argued about the office officer question as the justices asked him, is meant to cover just donald trump because at least in mitchell's estimation, trump and oh, george washington, are the only presidents who were elected but had not previously taken a article or a section six oath to support the constitution. and so you know, i think underlying your question is trump's main argument, which is that no law, whether it's federal criminal law or the constitution of the united states should apply to him. >> so your name is now going to be up there with madison, marbury, anderson. not bad. >> not bad. >> no matter what happens, historic. safe travels back to colorado. >> thank you very much. >> thank you so much for being here. really appreciate it. >> coming up, the scathing details attacking president biden's memory. will those scathing comments stick with voters when they go to the polls in november? don't go anywhere. stay with us. two leading candidates for senate. two very different visions for california. steve garvey, the leading republican, is

it's an argument that's been made multiple times including today by jonathan mitchell. he said it was a riot. would you want the supreme court to weigh in on that? and give their thought on what happened that day to clarify their position? >> i could see a scenario where it's helpful that they would weigh in on it. but i also think that we don't even get to that point if we just look at the law itself. if we look at the merits of the case, and we follow the arguments that were put forth by donald trump's team, especially our briefings that we put forward in the supreme court, i think it comes down to, does this 14th amendment section three even apply to president trump or other presidents? >> reporter: you have a narrow ruling where they don't even look at the question of insurrection. today look at the 14th amendment and if it's self executing? there's a question there as well. it's ambiguous. >> yes, they should focus in on that question because we can have 50 different policies in different states on how to achieve this specific question. >> is it possible that some

jonathan mitchell said a categorical qualification.sn't that set you up to allow donald trump to present himself on the ballot for a third term and can colorado not disqualify him? jonathan mitchell was very clear, no, that would be a categorical qualification. >> not to jump in. do you think she would have asked that about bush senior or ragan or obama? >> obviously not. obviously not. this is obviously the point she made to him about whether this rule he concocted was gerrymandered for his client, donald trump. we are beyond the realm of talking about ordinary presidential behave your. we haven't talked about ordinary presidential behavior in 2016. the fact that had to be said tells us how far we have come since donald trump became president. >> it speaks to the cycle of constitutional hard ball or potentially extra legal hard ball and all the perils that come with that. i want to thank you both and we heard what's wrong with the colorado argument. we are going to get in with the prosecutor why he thinks this was important to be brou

. >> jonathan mitchell, trump's lawyer, did lay out one caveat in the thursday hearing. manchin and to the court, even if donald trump or charged with insurrection, he should be immune from prosecution. a federal appeals court disagreed with that this week. he doesn't have presidential immunity. now the trump team plans to appeal the decision to the supreme court by monday, katie. what happens after that? because what they do could have huge implications for this criminal trials against trump. >> i thought it was telling jonathan mitchell took the opportunity and the front of the supreme court to manchin the presidential immunity arguments. but to your question, by monday, the daylight and posed, that is fraud trump to a plot to do an epic election for a state of the mandate. the mandate is this judgment that basically tells the district court, judge chutkan, here is your case. back duke what you need to do -- go back to trial and to move forward with the case. trump asked to apply for a stay. he has to apply for a pausing all of that mandate being returned to judge chut

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, w

prep here andrew, had i gone to law school, would i be able to follow this because i thought jonathan mitchell came out firing. >> harris: do you know why? >> bill: really sharp attorney out of austin, texas, chicago law. would i be able to follow this? >> bill: he said no. so i would need additional legal training? he said no, you would need to be a supreme court dork, which we are not. but, nonetheless, i think it's a fascinating day today. not the most monumental we have seen. but to have the former president come out at the end i think really just takes us full circle for what we are about to deal with in this >> harris: so jonathan mitchell haves argued before scotus five times. he does it. >> i think these attorneys, this is verbal warfare and those justices will try and knock you off your stride, and i just felt that he was well prepared for this and i was told he did a lot of mock training in order to get ready for it. >> harris: i want to quickly bring in fox news contributor and attorney leo terrell, just to get his thoughts on this, leo, i know that this won't be as expeditious as t

jonathan mitchell is the lawyer representing mr trump.ting forward his position on why the former president cannot be disqualified. he argued that the president is not "an officer of the united states" and therefore section three of the 14th amendment cannot apply to him. section three amendment of the 14th amendment says that any member of congress or officer of the united states who takes an oath to protect the constitution cannot hold office, so that is a section that this lawyer is referring to. mr mitchell argued that only congress can for section three. and only by removing a candidate after they had been elected and not by removing them from the ballot before an election. take a listen... the intention would be that you have the exact same actor, but you are saying that only that actor can put the disqualification into effect in the disqualification into effect in the first place.— the first place. that is some of their live proceedings. - the first place. that is some of their live proceedings. let's i the first place. that is som

he will be represented by jonathan mitchell. he's the former solicitor general of texas. this will be his sixth argument before the justices. this is someone who spent a long time in academia and government. scholarly articles. quite a contrast to the lawyers we've seen in trump in other venues. they're spending yesterday and again today, time to do mock arguments, preparation, ahead of tomorrow's historic case. and that's what many people would do, before they go before the justices. the trump approach is not always conventional. we're contrasting this approach to what we've seen over the past several weeks with the trump team. in the civil cases, in new york, where trump was often disruptive and then of course, he did show up, too, here in d.c., to the oral arguments at the district court on the question of immunity. they are engaging lawyers. and in some ways, an admission that roy they're doing over the past few months maybe hah hasn't reaped the benefits they hoped or expected. >> joe, who are the justices to watch or listen to? who are you watching? you will be in t

trump's lawyer, jonathan mitchell, an experienced supreme court advocate, argued trump isn't coveredy the so-called insurrectionist ban. >> a rule from the court would not only violate term limits, but take away the votes of potential tens of millions of. >> only one justified asked good whether it was. >> is that a chaotic effort to throw the government is not an insurrection? >> this was a riot. it was not an insurrection. >> jason murray argued for colorado voters. >> president trump disqualified himself from public office. states have the power to ensure their citizens' electoral votes are not wasted on a candidate constitutionally barred from elect. >> that seems to be a position that is at war with the whole thrust of the 14th amendment, and very a-historical. the whole point of the 14th amendment was to restrict power. >> reporter: and a ruling in favor of colorado and other states then following suit. >> it will come down to just a handful of states that will decide the presidential election. that's a pretty daunting consequence. >> reporter: even elena kagan asked this -- >>

jonathan mitchell is very experienced before the justices.s issixth time, but he focused so the law. we've seen great lawyers in federal courtrooms sometimes saying things that otherwise they wouldn't if they weren't representing the former president. appearing to play to an audience of one. sometimes getting contentious exchanges with judges. today we saw none of that. even when a justice appeared a little skeptical of his argument, he was able to manage them in a way that did not make it contentious at all. it was really interesting to note how he focused on the merits. he focused on the law. and remained respectful. complete contrast to what we've seen two civil cases recently in new york. so interesting to see going forward, is this the new approach that they take to legal proceedings. let lawyers go in, and do serious disciplined work inside the courtroom and if the former president wants to go outside and argue about an insurrection and score political points, he can do that because today legally this is likely going to pay off. >> and

jonathan mitchell, representing trump, has some experience but nothing that compares to the record of big-time appellate advocates who appear before the justices in major cases. they simply have not stood at the lectern and faced these nine justices. they moved their operations to washington, d.c. and are tapping into a network of lawyers who can help them prepare for the nine justices and their intense, rapid-fire questions. they are undergoing dry runs known as moot courts. rather than nine judges, there will be four or five lawyers pretending to be the justices. these moot courts work to expose the weaknesses in a case. so a lawyer can amend what isn't working. there are so many legal issues. these lawyers need to be ready for all manner of question, but they also need to keep the core legal points right at the forefront that will help their respective side. who do attorneys get to help them ensure they can keep some control during these arguments? lawyers who have argued dozens of cases and know how to channel these justices. the ideal candidates are former law clerks for the just

arguing on trump's behalf will be jonathan mitchell, a former texas solicitor general, this will be his sixth appearance before the high court. >> supreme court justices are ultimately political appointments. >> reporter: and this case is not just a test for trump, the justices have also been under intense scrutiny over questions. and john roberts' legacy is on the line as he tries to steer the court clear of politics. >> we do not sit on opposite sides of the aisle, we do not cause c caucus in separate rooms. we do not serve one party, we serve one nation. >> reporter: roberts under pressure to build consensus. >> i think they would rather is not be thinking about these issues, but it is what the democracy requires, what the constitution requires at this moment. we think the court will rise to that occasion. >> reporter: after thursday's oral argument, the trump team will need to pivot to another issue that tell like to bring before the justices. they only have until monday to tell the high court that they want to appeal tuesday's decision that found that trump does not have presidenti

here are two other individuals who will be present today, jason murray and jonathan mitchell.mitchell will be the lead attorney for president donald trump, a former solicitor general of texas. a clerk for antonin scalia jason murray is a colorado trial lawyer he represents the six colorado voters and he clerked for elena kagan. those two individuals, they pictures in the washington post. this is leo from woodstock new york. caller: i am one of the uneducated. a couple of your callers stated about the uneducated and they have referenced anglo-saxon white guys. i am irish-american. who is uneducated here? host: what are your thoughts on the case? caller: john, my reference material. you cut people off with their reference material that you're allowed to reference the wall street journal. that is bias. what has donald trump been convicted of? host: william from illinois. caller: i am calling about one specific point in this case. donald trump is not an officer of the united states. let's follow through how a bill is passed. when congress signs a bill a passage to the president fo

while trump is not expected to be there, he will be represented by jonathan mitchell. a very experienced lawyer. his sixth time arguing before the supreme court. this is someone who writes articles on textualism. not the usual trump lawyer. today and yesterday they've been engaged in mock arguments. that something most people would do to prepare for the supreme court but the trump team not always conventional and they do expect that they will win on the merits of this case which is also why they feel more confident, leaning more into the legal and less into the political antics. >> when it comes to political, that is an area that the chief justice is trying to steer the port clear of yet it's kind of difficult, inherently, when dealing with something like this. how is the court going to look at this issue? >> they have a legal question. there are several questions that go to the text of this section of the 14th amendment that would bar anyone who had taken an oath to uphold the constitution, and then, insight it or engaged or -- in insurrection. the lawyers from colora

jonathan mitchell, who is representing donald trump, has had a couple cases up there but none of this magnitude. both these lawyers have other strengths, but in terms of just going up there and facing these nine justices, they need practice. this is what they're doing now. they both moved their operations to washington, d.c., as of today, to do all sorts of networking with sophisticated lawyers who argued many cases before the supreme court. one of the most common practices for a lawyer getting ready for the justices are dry runs known as moot courts. these feature four or five lawyers who play the role of the nine justices, and not just give the lawyers practice but help them expose the weaknesses in their cases, maybe figure out ways to amend things that just don't land right. to also strengthen the points that the lawyer wants to get across because, kate, these lawyers will field dozens and dozens of questions, so they have to be ready with answers. they've also got to be ready, more importantly, to constantly pivot the justices to their central point. who do you get to do these? o

jonathan mitchell, appearing on behalf of donald trump, has argued a handful of times before the justicesut nothing like this kind of case. how are they getting ready? they are both, as of today, moving their operations to washington, d.c. and tapping into a very sophisticated network of lawyers who have argued many times before the justices and can help channel the justices. one of the main devices they will use are these dry runs called moot courts. that's where four or five lawyers, not nine as in the real venue, four or five lawyers sit up on a mock bench or at a table and fire questions at these individual lawyers. it gives them a chance to not just practice their presentation, but to expose weaknesses in their presentation so they can fix things ahead of time. there's an adage that says the tougher the moot court, easier the actual thing. there will be the kinds of individuals that organizers of moot courts try to get are folks -- men and women with several arguments, dozens of arguments under their belt. they often turn to former members of the u.s. solicitor general's office, whic

trump's lawyer, jonathan mitchell, an experienced supreme court advocate, argued trump isn't covered by the so-called insurrectionist ban. >> a ruling from this court that of a affirms the decision below would not only violate term limits but take away votes from tens of millions americans. >> reporter: and argued january 6 was not even an insurrection. only one justice asked about whether it was. >> so the point is that chaotic effort to overthrow the government is not an insurrection? >> this was a riot, it was not an insurrection. >> reporter: jason murray argued for colorado voters who won their case at the lower court. >> by engaging in insurrection against the constitution, president trump disqualified himself from public office. states have the power to ensure that their citizens' electorate votes are not constitutionally barred from holding office. >> reporter: but the justices appeared much more skeptical. in an ominous sign chief justice said the arguments were at war with history. >> that seems to be a position that is at war with the whole thrust of the 14th amendment and

disciplined approach the team is taking to this historic case arguing on trump's behalf will be jonathan mitchell, a former texas solicitor general. this will be his sixth appearance before the high court. >> supreme court justices are ultimately political appointments. >> reporter: and this case is not just a test for trump. the justices have also been under intense scrutiny over questions about ethics and partisanship and for chief justice john roberts, his legacy is on the line as someone who tries to steer the court clear of the politics that divides washington. >> we do not sit on opposite sides of an aisle. we do not caucus in separate rooms. we do not serve one party or one interest. we serve one nation. >> reporter: roberts under pressure to build consensus. >> this case puts the court in a tough position any way around. i think they'd rather not be thinking about these issues, but it's -- it is what the democracy requires, what the constitution requires at this moment. we think the court is going to rise to that occasion. >> reporter: trump's legal team has just wrapped up a second day o

. >> trump's attorney tomorrow is named jonathan mitchell. he is going to be arguing before the supreme court for the sixth time. has done this obviously many times before. you know, obviously i can only imagine what it's like to be in the night before you go in front of the supreme court. does that -- i don't know what the right word is, but give you pause at all? this is somebody who is obviously very experienced. >> no, because at the end of the day, yes, the arguments are going to be important tomorrow. the justices will read the briefs, they'll come to their own decisions about what is right. my colleague jason murray, although he's never argued before the supreme court before, is an extraordinary advocate. as you might imagine, people were coming out of the woodwork to argue this case once it was granted here. we all unanimously on our team decided even though he had not argued before, he was the right person, the only choice to argue this case. >> thank you very much, sean. i appreciate your time. we will all be watching tomorrow. >> t

murray a clerk not just for kagen on the supreme court but he clerked for gorsuch and hear from jonathan mitchell representing trump and shannon stevenson, the colorado solicitor general. they will all be groping around to see if the justices are latching onto any particular narrative or angle. it will be interesting. the lawyers cannot be robotic in this argument. they have been very responsive to take indicators from the justices. the justices are trying to build a case from their perspective and you are there to help them, not necessarily redirect them. so they will be listening very carefully to what kagen, for example, is raising. >> bill: thanks to all of you and stand by. if history serves, the first time we heard these audio arguments was bush versus gore in november of 2000. 23, 24 years ago. our audience at home just recall that moment when that sound inside that room bounces off the granite marble walls. it is quite a moment. if you never thought that audio could be so compelling, just stand by because it can be coming up next hour. stand by, panel, to you. want to take our viewers jou

lawyers sit at tables before this elevated bench and the chief then will call the first lawyer up, jonathan mitchell who will try to make case for donald trump and will try to steer the justices far away from the facts of january 6th. when jason murray steps up to the lectern representing the colorado voters he is going to pound and pound and pound on the events of january 6th and donald trump's role in what happened that day, and the fact that lower courts have said that he did, indeed, engage in an insurrection. >> pretty good time for people to read your book, the chief, joan, i think, because all eyes are going to be on roberts. we'll get back to you soon, and of course you're a key part of our special coverage at 9:00 a.m. kristen holmes outside mar-a-lago where trump is staying. among them he's not going to be to go this court, going to his other trials recently. he's not going to be there. talk about the strategy today. >> good morning, poppy, and phil, the biggest part of the strategy as you said, he's not going. he has really used these various cases as campaign symptoms. opportunities for

arguing on his behalf is jonathan mitchell, a former texas solicitor general. this is his sixth appearance before the high court. >> supreme court justices are ultimately political appointments. >> reporter: the trump team is confident it will win the case, which started out as a long shot bid to push trump off the 2024 ballot. >> trump engaged in insurrection and cannot appear on the ballot. >> frankly, president trump didn't carry a pitch fork, he didn't lead a charge. >> reporter: in the lead-up to thursday's arguments, the anti-trump opponents looked for states they believe they could succeed based on a constitutional provision that hasn't been tested since 1919. their efforts have been met with mixed results, with only maine and colorado taking him off the primary ballot. even california opted to include trump. trump's team insists that states should not be able to deprive voters of their choice of candidates. >> this whole thing is rigged. election interference. >> reporter: this is not just a test for trump. justices have been under intense scrutiny over

let's start with justice ketanji brown jackson in jonathan mitchell, the lawyer who today argued formerident 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 th

the argument from trump's attorney jonathan mitchell. what happened on january 6th did not meet the criteria for an insurrection. you it did not involve an organized attempt to overthrow the government to for an insurrection that needs to organized, concerted effort. >> to overthrow the government of the united states through violence. both sides urged the justices to come to a decision quickly. >> reporting in washington, i'm basil, john. >> all right. thank you, basil. and joining us now is worry. little constitutional law professor at california college of the law, san francisco. we're thanks for your time this afternoon. is this in your opinion, the most kind of intertwined the supreme court will get into politics since maybe the bush gore election fiasco. >> yeah, grant. this is a very big case for the supreme court never ruled on this part of the 14th amendment before. obviously it has political implications for the nation and i think the court is going to try very hard to stay away the most divisive political sides of the case. th

trump today was former texas solicitor general and least popular display at madame tussaud's, jonathan mitchellll, mitchell here has a reputation as a tough litigator. one former colleague told politico, "he has a strong conviction for what he thinks the law is." [laughter] actually not the best compliment you could give. "oh, yeah, this guy's a great surgeon. he'll definitely remove what he thinks is your appendix." all right? mitchell, this mitchell fella, he has a history with the supreme court. he's argued before them in the past, and during law school, he maintained a website called "scalia shrine," in which he posted opinions and quotes from his favorite justice. you had a website devoted to your favorite supreme court justice? now, i know i'm a man who has read "the lord of the rings" too many times to count, but i just want to say nerd! [applause] i'm sorry. i'm sorry. i apologize. in their written argument, trump's lawyers pinned their hopes mainly on semantics. "a lotta people say your supporters are anti-semantic but not me. i love the semantics. you know they invented bagels." here'

jonathan mitchell, trump's attorney, emphasized two arguments.ed states and, therefore, section three of the 14th amendment does not apply to him. and second, that disqualifying trump under the amendment would require action from congress. the question of whether what happened on january 6th qualified as an insurrection are front and center. here's what mitchell said when asked -- >> there needs to be an organized concerted better to to overthrow the government of the united states through violence. and have -- >> the point is that a chaotic effort to overthrow the government is not an insurrection? >> we didn't concede that it was an effort to overthrow the government either. this was a riot, not an insurrection. >> justices across the ideological spectrum asked about one state having the power to disqualify a candidate for federal office. here's justice kagan. >> a lot of anderson's reasoning is really about that, like what's a state doing deciding who gets to -- who other citizens get to vote for for president? >> colorado is not deciding who

answered by president trump's lawyer, jonathan mitchell today.ice alito was asking, came a few minutes later. from the lawyer on the other side. the lawyer for colorado voters, jason murray, and a back and forth with chief justice, john roberts, in which they essentially say to the lawyer that this is crazy that we have to decide something like this. isn't it? the lawyer that essentially responds yes it is crazy, the reason it is crazy is because they are running against a guy who just recently tried to overthrow the u.s. government. yes, that is crazy, nothing like that has ever happened in this country before, at least since the civil war. but yes it is crazy. you do kind of have to clean it up now. >> listen. >> what do you do with what i would seem to me to be plain consequences of your position. if colorado is in a position that is upheld, surely there will be disqualification proceedings on the other side. and some of those will succeed. some of them will have different standards of proof, some of them will have different rules about eviden

new york times," the second one by lisa lehrer, was shocking in that you had trump's attorney jonathan mitchell in this country, basically saying i'm not sure donald trump even understands what's in some of this language but we just need the pro-life movement to shut up so we can go ahead and further our plan. why is this terrifying? these are the folks that trump's listening to. these are the folks that were embedded in this entire administration. and they are incredibly terrifyingly confident they're going to be able to push forward something really horrific, which is an abortion ban, a national abortion ban, with or without congress. a 16-week ban is terrifying, yes. will we be able to beat them back? yes. but going without congress is an entirely different story entirely. >> there are lots of chilling lines in the times report bug this one stood out to our team. one thing trump likes about a 16-week ban on federal abortionsize it's a round number. you know what i like about 16, mr. trump told one of his people who was given am nichlty to describe the private conversation, it's evening, it's

what happened, i think, is that jonathan mitchell, trump's lawyer, was very successful from the get goery possible ambiguity about section 3, which, of course, most people in the country never heard of section 3 of the 14th amendment until a few months ago. the court has never construed it. so it is ambiguous whether it applies to the president. it's ambiguous whether states have the ability to enforce it on their own. many ambiguities. trump's lawyer was talking in that all you have to do is persuade a majority of justices, let alone all of them, that there's enough ambiguity to hold back. whereas, the two lawyers for colorado had to bat away every possible ambiguity and assure the court that there was every reason to go forward and do something that many people would view as rather radical. the burden of proof was really on the colorado side. i think i agree with the general consensus that by the end of the very intense two hours, colorado just hadn't met that burden. >> they didn't talk that much, harry, about insurrection at all, in fact. there was a lot of focus on history. intere

yep, jonathan mitchell is the man who wrote the sadistic abortion bounty hunter law.mitchell has been pushing for the enforcement of the comstock act, a nearly two centuries old anti-obscenity law which would effectively ban abortion nationwide, and guess who is the key to making sure that happens. donald trump. maybe that's why, and helps explain why mitchell wants to make sure the guy who overturned roe remains on the ballot. joining me is elie mystal. do you find that stuff ironic too? >> it's almost like the states rights argument was invented by white supremacist patriarchs to allow the states to keep black people and women under control and that's the only thing the argument is good for, because when we try to use it for something else, apparently it doesn't matter. it's almost like that's what we're seeing, isn't it? >> it's almost. >> the irony is rife here. when we talk about elections, you're absolutely right to bring up abortion and mitchell and his kind of torturous role through all of this. he's the through line through all of this hypocrisy, but when we

the first 40 minutes is reserved for the trump lawyer in this case, his name is jonathan mitchell, if familiar to you, he was the lawyer who came up with the bounty hunter abortion ban in texas that enlisted texas citizens basically as vigilantes to go after fellow citizens getting abortions. he will get the first 40 minutes to argue trump's side of the case. then, the court is going to hear about 30 minutes from a lawyer named jason murray. he represents the named plaintiff in this case, a woman named norma anderson, a 91-year-old lifelong republican from colorado who sued the state to have trump's name taken off the ballot under the 14th amendment. after those 30 minutes, there will then be ten minutes for the colorado solicitor general, his name is shannon stevenson. she'll be representing the interests of colorado's secretary of state who oversees colorado elections and ballot. so that's how it's going to go. 40, 30, 10. if you have never heard an oral argument before the supreme court, you should be prepared for the fact the justices tend to interrupt a lot with their own questio

the argument from trump's attorney jonathan mitchell. what happened on january 6th did not meet the criteria for an insurrection. you it did not involve an organized attempt to overthrow the government to for an insurrection that needs to be organized, decision quickly reporting live in washington. i'm basil, john, thank you. basil. san francisco state senator scott wiener's introduced new legislation that would ensure the safe development of large-scale artificial intelligence systems in california. >> senator wiener says sb 10 47 would establish clear, predictable and commonsense safety standards for developers of the largest and most powerful ai systems. the bill would also provide funding for future large scale ai projects. this announcement comes on the same day. the country's ai safety institute consortium is launched, which is a first of its kind federal oversight program dedicated to developing ai measurements and evaluations. basically trying to get a handle artificial intelligence says it is some of us as the clouds are among u

of that nine justices, kentucky projects in, only she as a single question of trump's lawyer, jonathan mitchell, about whether he would admit his clients had in fact engage insurrection. here is some of that exchange. >> for an insurrection, threatening to be an organized, concerted efforts to overthrow the government of the united states through violence. and this riot occurred -- >> so your point is a chaotic effort to overturn the government's -- >> we didn't concede it's an effort to overthrow the government either. none of the criteria were met. this was a riot. it was not an insurrection. -- >> okay, so mitchell may want to have a few words with his client because shortly after oral arguments wrapped up, the ex president contradicted his own lawyers, describing the events on january 6th as a, quote, insurrection. he said. that this isn't just a debate over semantics. the language used here matters a lot because since the january 6th attack, trump and his supporters have tried to rewrite history. downplaying the events of that day. calling it a peaceful protest. as part of the ruling, the

he was well represented by jonathan mitchell today. it would have been potentially devastating for him just in terms of the optics and the solemnness of the argument if he tried to do what he did in some of the federal and state courts. >> i had the same reaction as laura with respect to the absence of a federal insurrection criminal charge coming up and the most notable thing when mr. mitchell, donald trump's lawyer was asked about did conceded that if there was that federal charge and a federal conviction of it, that that could lead to disqualification. the only caveat he put on that is the decision that the supreme court is going to have next week about immunity. that's the key -- i thought that was a key concession. >> speaking right now is one of the plaintiffs from colorado. 91 years old, politically active. let's listen. >> this is very personal to me. i lived a hell of a long time. i have gone through a lot of presidents. this is the first one that is trying to destroy the constitution. i thank you for being here. >> are you op

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

for example, trump's lawyer, jonathan mitchell, argued that the president is somehow not an officer ofd states as specified in the 14th amendment. meaning the text doesn't apply to trump, only to other officers of the government. justice sonia sotomayor pointed out during oral argument today that this would create a very convenient loophole for donald trump >> your principal argument is that the president is not an officer of the united states, correct? >> yeah. i would say it a little more forcefully than what your honor just described we believe the presidency is excluded from office under the united states, but the argument we have that he's excluded - the president as an officer of the united states -- is the stronger of the two textually and has fewer implications for other constitutional - >> a bit of a gerrymandered rule, isn't it, designed to benefit only your client >> i certainly wouldn't call it gerrymandered. >> seth: it is funny to imagine that the drafters of the 14th amendment somehow specifically exempted donald trump of all people that would explain why they added a cl

politico said jonathan mitchell delivered a button down that eliminated all the bombast the legal representativeected trump's side may be underplaying some arguments in his favor as we debate whether it's 7-2, 8-1, 9-0? what do you think? >> for me someone who thinks i clearly saw an insurrection and i saw who was instigating this insurrection and i can read the 14th amendment article iii which says that someone who has been involved in insurrection is not allowed to run for office. i would say it's a pretty clear case for people who are strict constructionists of the constitution. that's what the conservative majority in the court is the argument yesterday was clearly not along those lines. there was no debate was this an insurrection. the debate was really about whether or not one's state decision could impact a national election and if it's the case that you would kick off a republican today, are you going to start kicking off democrats tomorrow? and seems like that's the way the court's think something leaning. >> shannon: president trump is speaking right now at the nra. a lot of reaction t

jonathan mitchell is president trump's lawyer. the only one who has argued in front of his court. >> his sixth time arguing. interesting to see his comfort level in contrast to the other attorneys arguing. he clerked for justice scalia. he had a website devoted to him called the scalia shrine. he has written a lot of scholarly articles. murphy, clerked for both justice kagan and gorsuch and murray wrote an op yet in 2017 are you in for the confirmation of justice gorsuch? both of his bosses could not be more different politically they're both driven by the law and not partisan politics. interesting to see his interactions with those justices today. >> bill: this is a verbal machine gun. the lawyers start and start to make their case and they get redirected by any one of the justices. >> absolutely. so i do think that one who has argued before the supreme court before there is a certain level of comfort that has been developed. all three attorneys know the stakes are so high and i'm sure they're all nervous. >> dana: one of the thi