mr. mitchell? >> they rely heavily on the authority that it gives the legislature of each state to direct the manner of electing. it must be consistent. there arotrs. a state cannot instruct its electors only to vote for white candidat. nor can it violate the constitutional holding and they cannot use the electorate clause as an excuse to impose additional to go bond the constitution. the problem with what it has nes that they have cnged the criteria in section three by making it a requirement that must be met before the candidate who is seeking office actual holds the office, essentiall moving forward in time. there has still been no d there on how to distinguish the residency cases, where the court of appeals and applying this court's holding have unanimously disapproved at laws, requiring congressional candidates to show tt ey inhabit the state from whi they seek election prior to election day. eris still no possible way to distinguish those from the situation below. mr. murray also invoked the

mr. mitchell: correct. chief justice roberts: that is an unlikely scar. mr. mitchell: but no secretary oftate is allowed to predict a waiver because in doing so they are adding a qlication to the ability to run for congrs. the proper analogy is theta residency law because the constitution says a member of congress must inhabit the state he represents when elected. the lower courts have all held a reliance on term limits that an official cannot move that deadline any earlier by requiring a candidate of congress to inhabit the state -- chief justice roberts: even if a candidate says i am a resident iiana and i have been all life and i want to run for office in illinois, the secretary of state cannot say you cann? mr. mitchell: the question wod be is the person going to inhabit the state when e election is held. if the candidate makes cle perhaps through a dlation or through a statement that he has intention of relocating to that state before election day, then the secretary o state would be enforcing and it stand constitutional qualification rather than enforcin

mr. mitchell. mr. mitchell: mr. chief justice, and may it please the court: the colorado supreme court held that prident donald j. trump is constitutionally disqualified from serving as president under section of the fourtnt amendment. the colorado supreme court's decision iwrg and should be reversed for numerous indendt reasons. the first reason is that prident trump is not covered by section, cause the president is not "an officer of the it states" as that term is used throughout the constitution. "officer of the united states" refers only to appointed fials, and it does not encompass elected individuals, such as the president or members of congress. this is clear from the commissions clause, the impeachment clause, and the appointments clause, eh which uses "officer of the united states" to refer only to appointed and noelted officials. the sendeason is that section iii cannot be used to exclude a presidential candidate omhe ballot even if that candidate is disqualified from serving as president under section iii

mr. mitchell? mr. mitchell: the statutory definition of machine gun extends only to weapons that fire more than one shot automatically by a single function of the trigger. mr. cargill bump stocks found -- fall outside that for one definition. it can fire only one shot per function of the trigger because the trigger must reset after every shot and function again before another shot can be fired. the trigger is the device that initiates the firing of the weapon, and the function of the trigger is what the firing device must do to cause the trigger to fire. the phrase function of the trigger can refer only to the trigger's function. it has nothing to do with the shooter or what the shooter does to the trigger because the shooter does not have a function. the statute is concerned only with what the trigger does and whether a single function of that trigger produces more than one shot. second, a bump stock equipped rifle does not and cannot fire more than one shot automatically by a single function of the tr

mr mitchell was making the oint we've heard. mr mitchell was making the point that — we've heard.king the point that the government - we've heard. mr mitchell was making the point that the government was i the point that the government was providing aid and agreeing with david lammy about getting visas for humanitarian workers through and pushing israel to do that.— pushing israel to do that. that's ri . ht pushing israel to do that. that's riaht he pushing israel to do that. that's right he said — pushing israel to do that. that's right he said that _ pushing israel to do that. that's right he said that effectively - pushing israel to do that. that's right he said that effectively the labour position was looking for an immediate ceasefire or pause to get those israeli hostages out and to get aid into gaza and it felt, listening to andrew mitchell that he was optimistic that we are getting to that point quickly. ben was optimistic that we are getting to that point quickly.— to that point quickly. ben wright, thank ou to that point quickly. ben wright, thank you very — to that poin

mr. mitchell. mr. mitchell, please. >> i would hope it would be a state issue and ever since joe biden brought the abortion issue to the forefront of politics, we have put a lot of issues on the back burner like too many people are being gunned down in our country every day. too many young people are losing their children and too many people are losing their parents in this country and we need to get back to talking about god and god bless america, one nation under god and in god we trust. the last three years, it's been mostly abortion and national politics, but we've got to get back to public safety. and the value of life. it is just amazing some of the statistics. georgia has over 100 kids under age 18 gunned down in 2023 and you never hear the president say anything about it and you never hear the vice president say anything about it. we need to get back to protecting life. >> thank you mr. mitchell. a good segue. >> maybe we should start with mr. mitchell on this. we are having this a forum on the

mr. mitchell, please. >> i hope it would be a state issue. ever since joe biden brought the abortion issue to the forefront in our politics and we have put a lot of issue on the back burner, like too many young people are being gunned down in our country every day, too many people are losing their children and too many people are losing their parents in this country and we need to get back to talking about god, god bless america, one nation under god, in god we trust, and it, you know, the last three years it has been mostly abortion, abortion, and national politics but we gotta get back to public safety and the value of life and it is just amazing, some of the stats, georgia has over 100 kids under 18 gunned down in 2023 and you never hear the president say anything about it, you never hear the vice president say anything about it, and we need to get back to protecting life. >> a good segue to the next question. 9 -- >> we are having this form on the heels of a deadly shooting at university nevada las vegas and the tragic shooting of a new h

._ mr. amendment. sandra mitchell. mr seaker, amendment. sandra mitchell. dra mitchell. mr speaker, this has already - amendment. sandra mitchell. mr speaker, this has already been . amendment. sandra mitchell. mr| speaker, this has already been an extremely interesting debate. we heard from the honourable gentleman the shadow foreign secretary... i will give way later but i am not giving way for the moment. mr speaker, he spoke about the huge benefit of us speaking with one voice. we heard the memberfor foyle talk about the more cohesion in the house existing than people currently think. we heard from another member about the importance of there being some humility, i think it was the honourable gentleman, the shadow foreign secretary, because members of parliament are not in the room. i emphasise that the government is in the room and there was a call that we should lift the tone today. room and there was a cull that we should lift the tone for today. he says, the another gentleman for tottenham, we should come together. and i submit that the right thing t

mr mitchell promised £100 million more in uk aid to help millions of mothers like these get better accessclearly a risk of famine if we don't now take action. and there are serious indicators of the danger of famine. but, if you ask me, "is there a famine taking place now in ethiopia?" i say, "no," and we have the power to stop it. but is it a famine? aid workers are cautious. regional leaders have no doubts. the one thing i know is that thousands of people, who would otherwise have been able to feed themselves are not in a position to feed themselves, and they are succumbing to death because of starvation. whether you call it famine or a risk of famine ora potentialfamine — for me, it's purely academic. what transpired in 1985, for example, would pale in comparison michael buerk: dawn, and as the sun breaks . through the piercing chill of night on the plain outside korum, it lights up a biblicalfamine. this is what he's talking about. the famines of the mid—1980s reported so powerfully by michael buerk for the bbc. but the government in ethiopia disputes such comparisons, saying the coun

mr. mitchel? >> both mr. murray and miss stevenson rely heavily on the electors clause and the authority it gives the legislature of each state to direct the manner of appointing presidential electors. that prerogative under article 2 must be exercised consistent with other restrictions. justice kagan alluded to one of those restrictions that might be imposed by the 1st amendment. there are others. a state cannot use its power to instruct its presidential ee leshthz only to vote for white candidates. that would violate the equal protection clause. nor can it exercise its power in a manner that would violate the constitutional limits. they can use it as an excuse to impose additional qualifications for the presidency to go beyond what the constitution enumerates. the problem with what the colorado supreme court has done is they have in a way changed the criteria in section 3 by making it a requirement that must be met before the can't who is seeking office actually holds the office effectively moving forward i

mr. mitchell was making earlier. it seems to me that you are asking to enforce in an election some context, provision of the constitution that speaks to holding office. it's different than the qualifications clause which is about who can run and then serve. >> i don't know it is different. other qualifications for office talk about eligibility for the office. nothing unconstitutional about a 30-year-old trying to get on the ballot. >> except for this disability can be removed under section three. that's what is different about it. thoughts on that. >> the fact there is an extraordinary provision for removing the disability doesn't remove the fact the disability exist today and since january 2021 when president trump -- >> bill: were his actions after that date before he left office -- is that where your theory leads? >> can one collaterally attack an officer? we would agree in griff an's case when the justice said i talked to my supreme court colleagues and we agree you can't collaterally attack all official actions

mr mitchell is visiting the country to promise british aid worth about $125 million, to help mothersrn ethiopia. once again, hunger is stalking ethiopia. the babies in this hospital, in the northern tigray region, are all acutely malnourished. their mothers, little better. tsega is 23. herfour—month—old son has been malnourished since birth. her family's crops failed and there was no food to be had. "even when i was pregnant, i was not eating a balanced diet," she said. "i was not producing enough breast milk. that's why the baby has developed malnutrition. ijust didn't have enough to eat at home." we travelled north, across the parched ethiopian highlands that have suffered from successive droughts that many attribute to climate change. there, with the africa minister andrew mitchell, we visited a clinic where anxious mothers queue to get their children assessed for malnutrition. this is a largely forgotten crisis. it's hard for the media to get here, fighting makes some areas inaccessible for charities, and the world's attention is elsewhere. but once again, women are queuing up wi

mr. mitchell too, that it just doesn't seem like a state call. >> three points, your honor. the first is that ordinarily this court reviews factual findings for clear error. president trump made the point in his reply brief on constitutional questions that require a uniform resolution this court can do more -- something more like a boss court style and we would have objection to that given the record here the facts that are disputed here are incredibly narrow. the essence of our case is president trump's own statements that he made in public view for all to see. >> then that's saying that in this context, which is very high stakes, if we review the facts essentially de novo, you want us to watch the video of the ellipse and make a decision without any deference to or guidance from lower court fact finding. that's unusual. >> ultimately president trump himself urges this court to decide the merits of his eligibility on the factual record here on page 2 of his brief. he's never at any point in this proceeding suggested there was something else that needed to be in the factual

mr. mitchell? >> may it please the court. the statutory definition extends only to a been that fire more than one shot automatically by single function of the trigger. they fall outside the statutory definition. it can fire only onehot per function of the trigger because the trigger mt reset and functi again before another shot can be fired. it initiates the firing of a weapon. the functioning of the trigger what the device must do. it can refer only to the trigr's function. it has nothing to do with the shter or what the shooter does with the trigger becausehe shooter does not have a function. the statute is concerned only with what the trigger does and whether a single function of that trigger produces more than one shot. seco, the rifle cannot fire more than one shot automatically by a single function of the trigger. the shooter must also undertake additional manual actions to ensure a sceful round of bump firing. everything abouthe bumfing process is manual. the process depends entirely on huma effort. it must thrust it f

mr. mitchell if i may interrupt to clarify. this sounds like your reply brief. it sounds like you are not making a constitutional argument, you really making a statutory preemotion shun argument. is that what you're doing here? you are not saying that the constitution gives you this rule. it is the kind of combination of griffin's case plus the way congress acted after griffin's case that gives you the rule. >> that's right. congress took up the invitation provided by griffin's case and established it in the 1870 enforcement act. later repealed them. the only legislation on the books is the insur oak shun criminal statute. in 1870 the repeal of the provisions of 1948, all those were made with griffin's case as the back drop. the understanding was these remedies would be exclusive of state court remedies. there is not an express statement of pre-- >> suppose that we took all of that away. suppose there were no griffins case and congressional enactment. what do you then think the rule would be? >> a much harder argument for us to make. normally every other provisi

mr. mitchell promised 100,000,000 pounds more in u.k., but the international community has to do more. >> there is clearly a risk of famine if we don't take action. there are serious indicators of the danger of famine. if you ask is there a famine taking place now, i say no but we have the power to stop it. >> is it a famine? aid verge -- workers are cautious. >> one thing i know, thousands of people have been able to feed themselves. others are succumbing to death because of starvation. whether you call it famine or a risk of famine, to me it is academic. what transpired in 1985 would pale in comparison. >> as the sun breaks through the piercing chill of night, it lights up a biblical famine. this is what he is talking about. the famines of the mid-1980's, reported powerfully for the bbc. the government in ethiopia disputes such comparisons, saying the country is a victim of climate change. >> there is a drought. no famine. -- is responding.response thing we call all stakeholders to do their share. >>he problem is the -- that about one

mrs. mitchell, could not immediately be reached for comment while albuquerque public schools known locally to comment now the student and her attorney seeking more information and damages. >> we want to know what aps actually did to investigate this, and whether that report looks like it's trying to sweep this under the rug without a full investigation p >> our thanks to steven for that report > >>> still to come, nothing to see here the modern day update of the naked gun. modern day update of naked gun. emerge as you. with tremfya®, most people saw 90% clearer skin at 4 months... ...and the majority stayed clearer, at 5 years. serious allergic reactions may occur. tremfya® may increase your risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms or if you had a vaccine or plan to. emerge as you. emerge tremfyant®. ask you doctor about tremfya®. mr. clean magic eraser powers through tough messes. so it makes it look like i spent hours cleaning, and you know i didn't. it makes my running shoe look like new! it's amazing. it's so good. i

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

mr. mitchell, if i may interrupt just to clarify.this sounds like your reply brief, where it sounds like you're not making a constitutional argument. you're making a statutory preemption argument. is that what you're doing here? you're not saying the constitution gives you this role. it's the kind of combination of griffin's case plus the way congress acted after griffin's case? >> yes. >> that gives you the rule? >> that's exactly right, justice kagan. we have implementing legislation, congress took up the legislation provided by griffin's case and established in the 1870 enforcement act, later repealed. the only enforcement legislation that's currently on the books is the insurrection criminal statute, section 2383 and when congress made all of these decisions, the initial enactment of the enforcement act in 1870, all of those were made with griffin's case as the backdrop. >> please -- >> the understanding was that these remedies would be exclusive of state court remedies. there didn't need to be because griffin's case provided the

mr mitchell promised £100 million more in uk aid, but he said the international community had to do moretake action, and there are serious indicators of the danger of famine. but if you ask me, "is there a famine taking place now in ethiopia?", i say no and we have the power to stop it. but is it a famine? aid workers are cautious. regional leaders have no doubts. well, one thing i know is that thousands of people who would otherwise have been able to feed themselves are not in a position to feed themselves, and they are succumbing to death because of starvation. whether you call it famine, or a risk of famine, or a potential famine, for me, is purely academic. what transpired in 1985, for example, would pale in comparison. dawn, and as the sun breaks through the piercing chill- of night on the plain outside korum, it lights up- a biblical famine. this is what he's talking about. the famines of the mid—1980s, reported so powerfully by michael buerk for the bbc. but the government in ethiopia disputes such comparisons, saying the country is a victim of climate change. there is a drought.

mr. mitchell. >> both mr. murray and ms.venson rely heavily on the electors' clause and the authority it gives the legislature of each state to direct the manner of appointing presidential electors. but that prerogative under article 2 must be exercised in a manner consistent with other constitutional provisions and restrictions. and justice kagan alluded to one of those. but there are others. a state cannot use its power under article two electors' clause to instruct its presidential electors only to vote for white candidates. that would violate the y'all protection clause. nor can it exercise its power in a manner that would violate the constitutional holding of the u.s. vers is thornton and they can't use the quleek tors' clause as an excuse to impose additional qualifications for the presidency that go beyond what the constitution enumerates in article between. and the problem with what the colorado supreme court has done, they have in a way changed the criteria in section three by making it a requirement that must be me

mr. mitchell? >> poet rely on the elector's clause authority of each state to direct the manner of appointing presidential electors. that prerogative under article 2 must be exercised in a manner consistent with other constitutional provisions and restrictions. and justice kagan alluded to one of those restrictions that might be imposed by the first amendment. but there are others. a state cannot use its power under article 2's elector's clause to instruct its presidential electors only to vote for white candidates that would violate the equal protection clause nor can it exercise in a manner that would violate the constitutional holding of u.s. term limits against authorton. and they cannot use the elector's clause as an excuse additional qualifications for the presidency to go beyond what the constitution enumerous rates in article 2 the colorado state court changed the criteria in section 3 by making it a requirement that must be met before the candidate holds offie moving forward in time the ca

mr mitchell promised £100 million more in uk aid to help millions of mothers like these get better access. there is clearly a risk of famine if we don't now take action. and there are serious indicators of the danger of famine. but, if you ask me, "is there a famine taking place now in ethiopia?" i say, "no," and we have the power to stop it. but if we don't take the necessary action now, then there is every danger that a famine will engulf this war—torn country, which has suffered so much already. but is it a famine? aid workers are cautious. regional leaders have no doubts. the one thing i know is that thousands of people, who would otherwise have been able to feed themselves are not in a position to feed themselves, and they are succumbing to death because of starvation. whether you call it famine or a risk of famine ora potentialfamine — for me, it's purely academic. what transpired in 1985, for example, would pale in comparison if we fail to address the kind of unfolding famine that's staring us in the eye. michael buerk: dawn, and as the sun breaks . through the piercing chill of ni

one of the more liberaljustices sonia sotomayor challenged mr mitchell in a number of points. _ history proves a lot to me and to my colleagues generally. there's a whole — colleagues generally. there's a whole lot — colleagues generally. there's a whole lot of examples of states relying — whole lot of examples of states relying on section three to disqualify insurrectionists for state — disqualify insurrectionists for state offices. and you're basically teiting _ state offices. and you're basically telling us — state offices. and you're basically telling us that you want to say that self execution it doesn't mean what it generally means, you want us now to say— it generally means, you want us now to say it _ it generally means, you want us now to say it means that congress must permit— to say it means that congress must permit states or require states to stop insurrectionists from taking state _ stop insurrectionists from taking state office. and so this is a complete _ state office. and so this is a complete pre—emption in a way that's very rare _ complete pre-emption in a w

mr. mitchell in 1920, somewhat modest. but it was the home of the elgin motorcar company. now, if you've ever heard of the elgin watch company, several executives from that particular company got together and started their own motorcar company. and they're very first offering was the 1920 elgin six four touring car. their tagline as a nod to the lg watch company, was the car of the hour are built like a watch. and it was a rather snappy looking vehicle, which you could pick up for $985, either a roadster or a touring car. a little further south on michigan avenue, you can encounter two buildings. the cadillac one and the detroit electric showroom. yes. electric vehicles were available over 100 years ago. now, the cadillac showroom was at 2412 south michigan avenue. and the detroit electric was at 2416. now, keep your eye on that column here. it shows up in this photograph. this is a nighttime view, looking from the street into the showroom of the anderson electric, where you would see a detroit electric available for sale. and if you visit in 1916, you could pick up the sn

mr. mitchell, everyone is saying i should have your office because my cubicle is a disaster right now. >>ings? >> bye-bye. >> he gets whoever he wants. >> that was the most fantastic lovemaking you've ever had. >> not really. it only lasted -- >> two hours. i was a two-hour love session. you had a big o in there come a very big l. >> i did? wow. want to go again? >> i'd love to come of that you are too tired. >> and he's whatever he says he has. >> excuse me, excuse me. it's 170. >> you got new shoes, too? >> yeah. air bidens. pass me the rock! here we go. >> jesse: all presidents are funny. all of them, especially trump. but even more so biden. he gives us so much material. even italian tv can see a punch line. >> i said to the president of israel, mikhail gorbachev -- no, not gorbachev. the president of israel, no. >> sorry, michael jordan. >> no, no, no. when we went to the moon, and it was shot from dallas -- sorry, it was the moon. it was myers. >> jesse: that's a country that takes a two hour lunch break that put on a better show than we do. jimmy failla, host of fox news saturday n

mrs. mitchell, could not immediately be reached for comment, while albuquerque public schools declining to attorney seeking more information and damages. >> we want to know what aps actually did to investigate this and whether that report looks like it's trying to sweep this under the rug without a full investigation. >> reporter: steven romo, nbc news. >> thank you. >>> when it comes to the 2024 campaign season, there's no question that artificial intelligence is already playing a role. at least one organization is using the technology to help make the work campaigns do every day cheaper and more efficient. morgan radford has more. >> this just in. >> reporter: it's been a political weapon and a political issue. >> do you think the industry is mature enough to self-regulate? >> reporter: now one organization is embracing artificial intelligence as a political strategy. >> it's like you have a very, very smart, talented and fast assistant. >> reporter: tech for campaigns is using ai tools to generate digital ads and fund-raising emails, giving cash-strapped campaigns in tight races a high-

mr. mitchell, everyone saying that i should be have your office because my cubicle is a disaster right now. >> can i have a minute together my things? >> bye-bye. >> he is whatever he says he is. >> excuse, me excuse me. it's one 70. >> it's one 70. there you have it. lying about the facts can confuse people, it can make other people believed the lie. we're live for you. in the, and as you see on your screen, it does not change the actual reality, including for many republicans that have been voting for the choice of trump on the ballot over the last couple of weeks. trump got millions of people following his lies about losing the last election. that didn't make him president, joe biden is president. he did not keep many of the people that followed those lies out of prison. many of them are not spending years committing crimes based on trump's big lie. there is a long way to november. today's lies about the actual opposition of trump within the actual electorate right now, saying nothing of the general electorate. it's something that it cannot be politically lied away. getting high on your

mr. mitchell after that. the lawyer got a receptive audience from the majority conservative justices who seemed highly skeptical of colorado's case. and at times they seemed to ask leading questions to help make trump's case. >> justice alito. >> is there any history of states using section 3 as a way to bar federal office holders? >> not that i'm aware, justice alito. >> i appreciate that response. is there anything in the original drafting, history, discussion that you think illuminates why that distinction would carry such profound weight? >> not of which we're aware. >> it's a precedent, although not binding, but your point then is it's re-enforced because congress itself relies on that precedent in the enforcement act of 1870 informs the backdrop against which congress does legislate and then as justice alito says, the historical practice for 155 years has been that that's the way it's gone. there haven't been state attempts to enforce disqualification under section 3 against federal officers in the year

mr. mitchell at all. he was professional.hought he was actually -- >> trump actually got legal representation. >> excellent legal representation. >> those dollars worked. >> somebody paid for it, i don't know if it was him. >> thank you for getting up early and being with us. i'm, next michigan secretary of state jocelyn benson joins the table. she was at the supreme court for oral arguments in this case. you're watching the weekend. th. ♪you... can make it happen...♪ ♪♪ try dietary supplements from voltaren for healthy joints. a force to be reckon with. no, not you saquon. hm? you! your business bank account with quickbooks money, now earns 5% apy. 5% apy? that's new! yup, that's how you business differently. ♪ ♪ 5% apy? that's new! is this yours? you ready? surprise! i don't think you can clear this. i got this. it's yours now. ma, ma, ma— ( clears throat ) for fast sore throat relief, try vicks vapocool drops. with two times more menthol per drop, and powerful vicks vapors to vaporize sore throat pain. vicks vapocool drops

mr. mitchell, everybody's saying i deserve your office because my cubicle is a disaster right now. well, can i have a minute to gather my things? my my. he gets whoever he wants. wow. that was the most fantastic lovemaking you've ever had. oh, really? it only lasted 2 hours. that was a two hour, two loves. you had a big show in there. a very big show. but i did. >> now want to go again? i'd love to, but you're too tired and is whatever he says he is. >> excuse me. excuse me. it's 117 and you've got new shoes to. yeah. air biden's a rock. here we go. oh. >> all presidents are funny. all of them, especially trump. but even more so. biden. he gives us so material. even italian tv can see a punch line. i said to the president of israel, see mikhail gorbachev? >> no, no, not gorbachev, nothing. >> gorbachev, the president of the israeli. no, no, sorry. >> michael jordan. no, no, no, no. well, they went to the moon and it was shot from dallas. johnny, sorry, is is towards the moon and mars. that is a country that takes a two hour lunch break, put on a better show than we do. jimmy, host

mr. mitchell, it was clear amy coney barrett and others were saying this is a ridiculous argument, of course the president is an officer under the constitution. it's almost -- so you could also interpret it to mean she was just trying to get out of him a cogent argument, shoot 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 lawyerth that it doesn't count because the president isn't explicitly idnamed, and she couldn't even get that out of him. luckily, these decisions aren't made on oral arguments alone but they're made a on the facts and research people do. but it was an interesting performance i think by a the lawyer representing colorado. >> joyce,ep now that this heari isth basically out of the way, w could that affect the other case that the supreme court could be facing just days from now, the one for absolute immunity? >> so, steph, you know, 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 litt

mr. mitchell it was clear that amy coney barrett and others were saying this is a ridiculous arm document 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 la

mr. mitchell is the vice president director of the center for monetary and financial alternatives at the cato institute. arianna royster, ms. royster is the present of -- she is here on behalf of the national apartment association. and diane yentel. ms. yentel is the presidency of the low income housing coalition. thank you for taking time to be here and without objection or written statements will be made part of the record. mr. appleton you are recognized for five minutes to give your aura remarks remarks. >> thank you chairman davis and ranking member pressley thank you for inviting me to testify today. it's great to see my longtime former boss mr. luetkemeyer on the subcommittee. the previous step i served in policy was including assistant secretary of hud and now president of the u.s. mortgage insurers. though companies in the market every day to plan private capitol to ride access to mortgage financing primarily to first-time low to moderate-income buyers will sum up things they protecting taxpayers from credit risk. but we cannot solve the scarcity of affordable housing supply in

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

correspondent and chief foreign affairs correspondent for nbc news and host of msnbc is andrea mitchell reports. mr. prime minister, there are no too better journalists and no more qualified journalist to join you in conversation. so thank you for taking the time to join us, and with that i will turn over to you, david and andrea. >> thank you very much, fred. my thanks to the atlantic council. thank you, sheikh mohammed for coming and taking questions after long weekend of negotiations in paris. we know that you are in paris with the representatives from the united states, egypt and israel, all focusing on the release of the hostages. but there's a plan, a framework that you will agree to this weekend to release the hostages in agreement with a phased pause in the fighting, women and children first, and to continue this in phases as you proceed with aid going in as well. this is being presented as a understand now to hamas. in the past they've insisted on an immediate permanent ceasefire before any hostages can be released. do you think there's a chance they might agree to this, are with their vet