are not going to hear the case? >> i would predict that the supreme court not wanting to split the baby here. they could be quite clean, simply saying no, on this issue of colorado. ballot disqualification. then he could intern say, will hang on a second, the lower court ruling, the dc circuit court of appeals suggests that we might have the same conclusion. why should we put our own spin on it if it is called a concurring opinion? that is a political calculation. i get to legal things that are clean, but you put them together and -- [inaudible] i'm going to finish my point. hold on. the point of splitting the baby portion of it is, yes, there are political calculations always at stake for the supreme court from the perspective of the voters during the election year. the question of immunity is about checks and balances. the question for the other aspect is, can you disqualify somebody under section three?

we can parse it now, but they will view according to prerogative, which is political, the portion aspect. >> if you are just joining us, this is cnn's breaking news coverage of today's historic u.s. supreme court hearings. the justices seem to be singling that they will not be going with the colorado supreme court reeling -- the high court's conservative members say they were seeking a way to sign with the former president, most likely based on reasoning that does not address the question of whether or not he is or is not an insurrectionist. ♪ ♪ ♪ let's go back to cnn senior legal analyst elie honig, you are at the legal man magic wall. to the arguments play out the way the you expected them to? >> i think they do. jake, we identify three key arguments to watch. did he engage in the insurrection or not? we said that it would be unlikely the supreme court would want to be deep into this. in fact, they went into it one time, justice jackson for the

very end of just -- donald trump's lawyers asked a question about whether donald trump engaged an insurrectionist. the lawyer said no, they gave a convoluted definition of insurrection. the supreme court was much more focused on the procedural questions starting with who gets to decide whether and how the 14th amendment applies? is it up to the individual states? does it have to come with congress or some federal source? to that end, we heard a very important soundbite. let's roll that, we can talk about it on the other side. >> what is your argument that it is not? your reply says that it was not, because i think you say, you did not involve an organized attempt to overthrow the government. >> that is one of many reasons. for any insurrection, it needs to be an organized, concerted effort to overthrow the government of the united states through violence. >> so there is justice jackson asking about the insurrection question. we have heard donald trump's lawyer say that we don't agree that it's an insurrection. that does not really go with the procedure quite now. as for the pressure of whether

the congress or state gets to decide, i think that it's pretty clear based on what we saw that perhaps in all nine justices are leaning towards that it has to come from congress, we can't leave it to the states, we might have some chaos if we leave it to the states. then the final question was, does the president count as an officer of the united states under the 14th amendment? this got into the minutiae of what councils an officer, the president or not. we heard the justices ask a question about that. let's take a listen to that. >> we believe that the presidency is excluded from office under the united states. the argument that we have that he is excluded, the president as an officer of the united states, is the stronger of the two testimonies. it has fewer applications from the testimony. >> it is -- assigned to benefit only your client? >> yes, so the justices did not seem overly impressed with this argument that the president somehow does not count as an officer. i don't think they will address this all as a ruing.

one thing, jake, when are we going to get an answer? a ruling from the supreme court? they always can rule on whatever they want. an important day to keep in mind here, march 5th is super tuesday. other states will be voting on march 5th, so it is a safe bet that we will get a rolling before that because the supreme court recognizes the voters of colorado and elsewhere have to recognize whether candidates will or will not be cut fat -- >> joining us now, jamie raskin of maryland, he attended today's supreme court hearing as a former member of the january 6th house select committee. congressman, good to see you. what was it like in the room for the oral arguments, what was your take away? do you agree with our assessment that court seems to be looking for an off ramp? >> i agree with the last point. the conservative majority is looking for a way not to have to uphold the obvious, which is that donald trump participated in what was obviously an insurrection. the legal

arguments abstracted away from that, the core of the argument being made by donald trump's pretty able lawyer was that you need, you cannot disqualify trump now, even if everybody agreed he was an insurrectionist. you cannot move the disqualification between the points of the election and his taking of office. that is a nice splitting hairs point about the electoral college. unfortunately, the remainder was left on the table, nobody used it. if that is the case, it is also the case that under the electoral college system, the state legislature could decide to appoint electors for him, even if there is not on the ballot. indeed, in the final analysis, the electoral college committee in their infinite wisdom on the original constitutional plan, decide to choose him for

president. there would be nothing irrevocably disqualifying about colorado deciding in its wisdom that he conforms to the constitutional definition of an insurrectionist. i thought that it was a clever argument, and i think that he placed almost everything on it. ultimate, it fails. >> just interrupt slightly, he did not -- jonathan mitchell, trump's attorney did not grant the idea when it finally came up 52 minutes into his argument when asked by a justice ketanji brown jackson. he did not grant that the part donald trump participated in an insurrection, ease that it wasn't organized. justice jackson seemed to be amused. so it is okay if it is a chaotic attempt. he said, no it does not buy the argument that there is an effort to overthrow the government. he did disagree with both trump participating in it, the idea that it was organized, and that it was actually an attempt to overthrow the government. >> the republican majority

caucus in the house is not organized. everybody has seen that. they are the majority. and is an insurrection regardless of what point in the continuum of organization it appears. you are right that he ended up saying at the end. my point is simply that if you look at the atmospherics of the oral argument and briefing, they don't place much on the idea that they are contesting either donald trump's due process rights in colorado, or the idea that there was an insurrection. they are really making an argument about the law that no state can disqualify somebody for being an insurrectionist. we in congress could end up acting by two thirds to remove the disqualification. my only point to that is, well, that removal of disqualification , or his removal from the ballot could also be undone by the state legislature in a point to the electors of the antique system we have. >> congressman, the big picture on this, the idea that they are

looking for an off ramp here. it is also in part because there was a balance around the immunity question as well. the supreme court will take that up, i'm interested in what you think about that. i'm also interested in the idea that in such a divided country, do you think would be good for the country to take them him off the ballad of this point? with that just risk the deep divisions getting worse? >> i will take both of those points. the first one is, i think that the consensus, at least the people that i got to talk to in the crowd at the court was that there is a potentially marbury versus matheson style judge here. allowing him on the ballot, but then to uphold his eligibility for legal prosecution and reject his absolute immunity claim. obviously, that kind of a political balance has nothing to do with the legal merits. a lot of people think that it might have. on your second point, which actually was kind of raised by justice alito in his terms, the

way i understood it. do you really want to enforce these rules against an insurrection? it might cause an insurrection. it might cause another one to just blow off of the log completely. the question of democracy was one considered by the framers of section three of the 14th amendment. they saw both the threat to democracy coming from politicians they get into office, where their oath of office, and then try to overthrow the government. they saw this disk falling -- disqualification for a tiny number of people as upholding democracy, not discrediting it. if you think about it, there were more than 100 million people disqualified for running for president in america today. i sat next to maxwell foster, alexandria ocasio-cortez. no matter how able they might be, they can't run for president. barack obama, it's the easiest requirement to comply with. don't engage in an insurrection. how many people have self disqualified under section three of the 14th amendment? more than a dozen today. maybe a half dozen. >> you're saying for cortez,

they are not 35 years old. >> they're not 35 years old. jennifer granholm, she cannot be president. arnold swanson agar can't be president. that's not democratic. >> but they are not the former president of the united states with a massive number of americans that -- >> brock obama's. >> but that's a different situation. would of the real concern? >> so that is the real argument. even if this is the necessary implication of the constitution, we should not called follow through with it because there might be more violence. that's the entire point of having a constitution. it's supposed to have fear and intimidation. we can't act scared. >> but congressman, a lot was said with justice kagan from ketanji brown jackson, and justice thomas about the idea of colorado as one state.

it's the other voters and other states to elect a candidate of their choosing. what do you met -- hagan called it nationalistic proposition, this state is ahead of its own skis on the behalf of the nation. >> i disagree profoundly with that, if that's what they were saying, certainly posing that question. it would be better for the supreme court to pronounce this. i agree, it we should have some clarity on it. we don't have a repeat of january 6th, 2021 and january 6th, 2025 on the floor of the house of representatives. having said that, what they are describing that this uniformity as a consequence of this system of federalism. some states allow former prisoners to vote. most states do, but some don't. the states like florida, which has been the legislatures been struggling to keep former prisoners from voting. they are affecting ultimately who is going to become president. >> congressman, from a quick note, you are going to say that the conservative majority on the

court, the six members who have been pinpointed by republican presidents seem to be looking for an off ramp. with all due respect, it is not just them. i would say that the kagan and so to my r, and also ketanji brown jackson, who's arguably the most progressive member. they seem to be looking for members in the polls for colorado. i want to play some sound from justice jackson, in which she adjusted one of kavanaugh's talking points. take a listen. >> the thing that is really troubling to me is that i totally understand your argument. they were listing people that were barred, and the president isn't there. i think that makes me worried that they weren't focused on the president. the language doesn't include the president, why is that? if there is an ambiguity, why would be construe it as justice kavanaugh pointed out? against democracy.

>> what is your response? >> i think that it's always a mistake to conclude from a particular question where the justices psyche or interpretation is. i think that she was trying to tease out the point. section three of the 14th amendment was meant in a categorical way to disqualify anybody who had participated in an insurrection of violence against the union, and previously had sworn an oath of office to hold office again. i think he was trying to get back -- that is part of a question, trying to get back to the reconstruction era context of the radical republicans partition of the 14th amendment to the constitution. >> congressman, i want to ask about the moment that we find the supreme court. you and i used to teach a lot at american universities. you mentioned marbury, the notion that the court is trying to find maybe some kind of political moment. it seems to be that part of the problem, why there is such a discussion off-ramp, is because

of where the court is at this particular moment in american history. because of the decline of public thinking in the supreme court, and how this supreme court actually doesn't have as much capitalism might have had in prior moments. how do you view it as part of the story? >> i don't know how you restore the credibility or legitimacy of the supreme court. we are going to intervene and stop the manual counting of ballots in the first time in american history because there might not be the exact same interpretive rules being used in one county or another. thereby handing the presidency to george w. bush. in a case where a state supreme is now through excruciating and prolonged fact-finding, there is a candidate disqualified by section three of the 14th amendment, we were not going to apply that. we would just say that we will leave it up to congress. haven't seen so much difference to congress in decades. [laughter] the clean water act, civil rights act, no problem posting

their great traditional graffiti all over the handiwork of congress. you say okay, the republicans control the house. let's get congress -- >> i would like for this court to be afraid of their own shadow. >> congressman, you're not allowed to mention bush versus gore. they said that was only for the one day, and no court could ever cited again. it was not a precedent. shame on you, you know you did there. much more ahead, including the conversation with the lead plaintive of the colorado ballot case. 91-year-old lifelong republican with a story political career. stay with us. ♪ ♪ ♪

welcome back to cnn special live coverage of the trump ballot battle. we just listed live the arguments made by both trump's attorney and the plaintiffs attorney inside of the supreme court for several hours here as

several of the justices were expressing skepticism for those arguments. now we wait to see where they are. i want to bring you something at the center of this. that is norma anderson, a 91- year-old republican from colorado who is suing to keep donald trump off the battle, and whname is on the legal filings that we see at the center of these arguments that we heard today. norma, it is great to have you here today. i want to listen in, what did you make of the arguments you heard inside of the supreme court? >> i felt that there were quite a few very in-depth questions. very difficult questions. yes, they focused on different things. it is -- i can't. it's so noisy in my ear i can't talk. >> give us a second, i will try

to address that. we definitely want to get your perspective on what you saw here. we will check on that. just give us one second, miss anderson, we will be back with you in a second. paul, obviously she is so notable here because she is one of these colorado voters. she is someone that i would note is -- a storied republican here in colorado. she is what the face of essentially what is donald trump on the balance. this shows you how it is at the heart of it. >> and for a long time. this is considered a fringe legal theory, a long shot bid to keep jump off of the ballot. this case, the issue, this particular form of litigation has been in the pipeline now for several years. it is pretty shocking as we made it here for the supreme court. this is a pretty obscure provision, section three of the 14th amendment of the u.s. constitution. this so-called insurrectionist band. it's something that has not

been litigated since like 1919. the fact that this is made it all the way to the supreme court, that's historic. i'm not sure she will be on the winning side of this case when it's all said and done, but it's an incredible journey. his story is amazing, the story of the case that could. nobody ever thought that this would end up in the supreme court when you look at all of other trump's legal cases. >> when you think about the historic aspect of the arguments, they're having to go back when they were truly adding this section to the constitution. arguments that were being made among lawmakers as they were debating it. i think that wasn't an exchange with judge ketanji brown jackson, where her and jason murray, the plaintiffs here for norma anderson, wondering if he is the officer of the united states or just in office. that matters, because it's whether or not the insurrectionist ban applies to donald trump. they are referencing a debate where one of the lawmakers

asked, well does it specifically say president in here? they pointed to the clause about officer of the united states. he seemed to think that worked in his favor. the justices said that there is ambiguity about who this applies to. >> exactly. you have to go back to civil war era. i think that one of the things that might be game over for the colorado voters, chief justice john roberts said this case is at odds with the history of the civil war. what he believes is the purpose behind his provision, which is to prevent people that had served the south, the fought for the south in the confederacy, and holding public office. they are holding states where they have national candidates. he was at a loss to give examples. it's pretty amazing that they have to get back to the end of the civil war to think about what they were doing, why are they crafting this particular provision? unfortunately, the lawyer advocating for the voters, they weren't really able to offer a

robust defense for the modern argument of donald trump fitting into what they were going back to in the post civil war era. >> most of it was safeguarding from this happening. states deciding what to happen with this insurrectionist ban. illinois voters trying to say that it applies to joe biden. that seems to be where they were saying, well, the pushback from the plaintiffs attorney jason murray here was that we have never seen a president do this before. this is historical in and of itself. this is not something you are going to be seeing every day. >> you hear that a lot with a lot of the trump cases. we've never been here before. i think that you raise an important point. there is a lot of concern about these states choosing who is or is not on the presidential ballot. that gives states a lot of power over federal elections. that's why justice kagan raises

one of these questions. do we want to have a state have the power for who run since presidential elections? i think it was judge alito that this is one of the reasons they took up the case, they don't want this ambiguity and chaos among 50 states. >> we have seen this play out. this is all centered on colorado. it has national implications. what we saw happen in maine, where the secretary of state made that decision. she's not an attorney, bringing attention what she believes is the duties of her office. but they were, saying the main superior court, let's see what the supreme court was saying. it speaks to the gravity of the decision they are making here, how many states it could affect. >> this is what they are designed to do. they are designed to resolve constitutional questions. there is ambiguity obviously, there is ambiguity here because it has been litigated over a dozen states with different

outcomes. also settling the law when there are disputes among the states. this is what they do. hopefully they can offer some clarity soon. now the question is, how long will it take them to get back with the decision? nobody knows. nobody knows how long it will take. >> my guess is that they would like to offer voters some clarity before tuesday. how long does it take with justice john roberts building a coalition to build consensus? again, this court is under enormous scrutiny over ethics concerns, over accusations, some well founded, about partisanship. this is arguably the biggest test of his career. they need to issue an opinion here. he's going to be under such pressure to build a coalition that doesn't look partisan. i think that you and i both heard, there is a possibility that they might be able to get somewhere where all nine justices, they will likely be very narrow. that could take time. it might not happen before super tuesday. i would think that they would like to offer clarity so that

voters don't go into the ballot box on super tuesday not knowing that the candidate they are going to vote for is going to be on the ballot in the general election. >> paula reid, standby. i think we might have miss norma anderson back with us. she is at the center of this. miss anderson, it's kaitlan collins from cnn. can you hear me? we will continue to try to connect with. we were talking about your reaction to this as you are listening to this. i think that it's important for people to watch and know who you are. we are a trail blazer in the republican politics for the state of colorado. why is this important for you whether trump belongs on the ballot? >> it's just very basic with me. it's defending our constitution. >> go on, norma.

>> it's hard to talk about with illinois, of sorry. it breaks high concentration. >> i completely understand. >> the minute you stop talking, i start getting this background noise. i'm listening to it instead of trying to answer your question. >> yes, and technical difficulties are hard, i promise we will work on that and try to bring you back in. you had a great quote about why you are behind this, how many presidents you live, through what you are going to see. we will continue to talk about that. hopefully after the break, miss norma anderson. paula reid, thank you as well. cnn special live coverage of this ballot battle that trump is now facing with the supreme court here right behind us. we will continue after a quick break. ♪ ♪ ♪

is it possible to count on my internet like my customers count on me? it is with comcast business. keeping you up and running with 99.9% network reliability. and security that helps outsmart threats to your data. moaire dida twoo? your data, too. there's even round-the- clock customer support. so you can be there for your customers. hey billy, how you doin? with comcast business, reliability isn't just possible. thanks. it's happening. get started for $49.99 a month. plus, ask how to get up to a $1000 prepaid card with a qualifying internet package. don't wait, call and switch today! i'm daniel lurie and i've spent my career fighting poverty, helping people right here in san francisco. i'm also a father raising two kids in the city. deeply concerned that city hall is allowing crime and lawlessness to spread. now we can do something about it by voting yes on prop e.

a common sense solution that ensures we use community safety cameras to catch repeat offenders and hold them accountable. vote yes on e. by most analyses, it seems like this was a good day for donald trump at the u.s. supreme court. the justices seemed to signal that they are poised to side with the former president and against the colorado supreme court's decision to disqualify him and remove him from the 2024 presidential ballot. even some members of the court

so-called liberal wing seemed to pose some difficult questions to the lawyers opposed to donald trump. let's turn back to our esteemed panel of lawyers, including now joining us, conservative attorney jamie's bob junior. mr. bob, let me ask you that you have argued amongst the supreme court multiple times. what were your takeaways from the oral arguments earlier today? >> i think your panelists have been right on in terms of interpreting the questions and concerns expressed by the justices. , that is, in your whole system of election, there's only one national office. that is the presidency and vice presidency of the united states. whether you can have a state by state determinations of very serious legal questions, many of which are unprecedented in our history about section three is disqualification, you can have

state by state determinations of that with the chaos and overturning of an election that even one state could cause if they disqualified the candidate that would otherwise one. that tells you that there needs to be a national solution for this. that seems to be congress. either on january 6th, when congress is entitled under the constitution and laws of the united states to determine eligibility, the qualifications of a candidate for president when they determine who is to be the president. not through a statute that provides a appropriate mechanism for this. it seems to me that that is what you are left with. the colorado head to prevail on a dozen serious legal issues.

in order to prevail. it seems like to me there are a bunch of justices not willing to accept. >> how do you ultimately think the justices are going to roll? do you think that it could be an unanimous opinion, based on what you heard? >> you sure have got to think that. i agree. i've argued six times in the supreme court. i've won nine cases there. you have to be cautious in reaching conclusions about the questions they ask. many of these justices were talking about not just asking questions or devils advocate question, they were expressing their own concerns about the colorado decision, where it would lead the country. it is very important that our elections be considered legitimate, and this willie

nearly state by state, maybe just one bureaucrat or state court judge taking a presidential candidate off with the result of affecting the outcome of the election. it's just intolerable. it does, i think it is congress's role, and that's where they will leave it to. >> george conway, i want you to take a listen to the lawyer for the colorado voters responding to a question from justice kavanaugh. >> what about the idea we should think about democracy? think about the right of the people i to elect candidates of their choice, letting the people decide? your position has the effect of disenfranchising voters to a significant degree. >> this case illustrates the danger of refusing to apply section three as written. the reason that we are here is that president trump tried to

disenfranchise 80 million americans that voted vote against him. the constitution doesn't require he should get be given another chance. >> i know you agree with that, you said yes exactly, but i don't know the justice kavanaugh -- >> i agree with that, but all also think it's interesting that the solution the supreme court seems to be headed towards does not respond to that. it is saying that somebody else is going to disenfranchise the voters, be at the congress on january 6th, via the federal court, we don't know what off- ramp -- what the off ramp they're taking is going to go. they are not saying that's a sum -- candidate for president can't be denied the ability to sit as president for being an insurrectionist. >> just not by -- >> right. so what they are saying, the president could be on the ballot, the person that is elected president could be on the ballot, and later found to be an insurrectionist. that seems to be just as much antidemocratic as what kavanaugh seems to be directing his question at.

>> jim, a day ago, i would've said this was a crazy hypotheticals. there are no crazy hypotheticals in this world anymore. one of the supreme court rules the way that we think the supreme court is going to rule, the u.s. just supreme court, it is not up to states to do this. it's too much power, at some federal office. wouldn't a democratic congress and president trump be elected in november, and during that period there is a conviction of donald trump, not for an insurrection, but for january 6th related crimes by jack smith. then on january 6th, 2025, his democratic congress says, we're not going to see this insurrectionist. he's clearly in violation of the 14th amendment. >> if it goes down that road, we are going to be right back where we are today. all of this will end up back in the supreme court again, i believe. i think that if the court paves the way to that without looking at these other issues with -- clearly they don't want states willy-nilly making decisions where you have texas -- maybe it happens to the other side

that was brought out during the hearing, somebody might take on biden during that win, say he's disqualified for some way of insurrection. what is the insurrection definition? that was also raised by the judges. you also have justice jackson honing in on the issue of officer and office. and really throwing the trump legal team a bone on that one. they did not really bite on, it did not take the opportunity to really seize the moment there. it seems like she had real questions as to whether the president is an officer under that statute or not. the others did not seize on it. she did. i think that's significant. are they going to find a way where we don't end up with the january 6th issue in their ruling? >> just ahead, the political impact of today's hearing with donald trump moving forward as the republican presidential front runner in case of other legal battles. stay with us. ♪ ♪ ♪

quite revealing two hours worth of arguments for the u.s. supreme court today. we are breaking down the top takeaways, including signals from the justices where they might be willing to assign donald trump in his fight against the colorado supreme court's decision to remove him from the colorado supreme court ballot. we heard from donald trump after the hearing wrapped, quickly going into campaign mode. kristen holmes is in florida hearing from donald trump, when are you hearing from donald trump? >> i'm hearing that the former president has told his advisers that he thinks the arguments went well. we know that he was watching them, and then he came out and

talked about, it saying it was a beautiful process, wants to mark -- democracy to work. quickly he turned this into a campaign speech, attacking joe biden. unsurprisingly, given he is still in the middle of this primary season. he actually just took off moments ago for nevada, where he is expected to win the caucus tonight. he's also the only viable candidate. part of his speech was very dedicated to this general election run that he has. at least he anticipates it to be. joe biden, but none of the things that are happening now across the globe would've happened. the other part of this that we have seen routinely, something that we heard again today, which is the despite the fact he thought the arguments -- despite the fact that his advisers have told him it is a good, solid legal case, he still seeks to turn all of this into one giant legal mess. by all of this, all of the varying cases that he's fighting. continuing to say that there are political persecution,'s election interference, all at

the hands of president biden. obviously, none of them, most of these cases aren't linked to each other. only two of them actually directly involved the justice department. again, this is how he started to campaign how he is going to run if he is in fact the nominee. it seems likely he could be. >> kristen holmes, thank you so much. we appreciated. let's go to the white house, cnn's mj lee. enter reaction from the biden camp so the u.s. supreme court hearing and the suggestion from many observers that it seemed as though donald trump is going to be on the ballot in november? >> look, jake, we don't expect the white house or biden campaign for that matter to weigh in in any serious way as far as legal proceedings are concerned. that has been keeping with the strategy that they have kept with all day log. weigh in any way over the ot public, basically saying that

these are a legal decision to be made in the judicial system. as far as the president is concerned, he himself has talked about this at times. as recently as last week when he said that as far as i am concerned, that is fine. that, referring to whether the former president donald trump ends up remaining on the ballot heading into november. the thing that we will consistently hear from white house officials and campaign officials, and the president himself is on the matter of the thread of donald trump, president biden believes poses to democracy. we have heard him talking about this in the speeches, heard him talking about it in casual settings. time and time again, this is the message and argument that we have heard consistently from the president. he believes the former president was responsible for calling for an insurrection, and that this is a threat he has pre been preparing to run against in november. that is the main argument the continues to sort of frame and be central to the biden

campaign as they are making the full pivot to the election. >> all right, mj lee, at the white house. thank you so much. let's bring in senior political commentator stan jones and scott jennings. even the justices appointed by democratic presidents seem skeptical. many of the arguments are being put forward by the colorado attorney's. if trump wins this case, it would be a political win as well. >> yes, a political win for him. obviously. the big news today, trump had a good lawyer that was interesting to watch. other than that, it's almost been like a foregone conclusion. i think that's very frustrating for a lot of people. this is a supreme court that seems very strong in taking rights away from women. very strong. the adversity program -- very strong. voting rights away from americans, very strong. now it's time to disenfranchise the disenfranchise or. they're looking for the exits. they can come up with excuses

do it over they want to, but at this point, they were trying to find any way not to do what i think a normal person looking at this would say. if barack obama sent 10,000 black lives matter people to deroy a section of congress, he could be president again. it's bizarre to watch the system continuing to bend over backwards as he plays this chicken game with our system. he's playing a game of chicken, and every institution swerves including the supreme court. >> do you disagree from that hypothetical if barack obama had lost the 22,012, refusing to leave office and sent a mob consisting of african american men to stop the counting. do you disagree with what he just said? >> i don't know how to resnd to a hypothetical on that. all i know is this. the reality is that if this supreme court today under the circumstances that they have,

the legal situation that they have, throwing donald trump off the ballot, it would send our country and political system into a world of chaos. i think this whole thing is they wear -- clear the decks so that american people can decide the future of donald trump. i think it's eligible to be, on this community cases going on, maybe they say they're not i mean, which they probably should do. that judge chutkan has to get the trial going. the docks need to be cleared so that the american people can finally vote. and when they do, are they dealing with a convicted felon? are they dealing with someone who's been acquitted. to me, that is paramount. what is the best thing for voter? for donald trump to stand and get his fate for them and for them to know what they are dealing with when he gets it. >> what about the idea that the u.s. supreme court -- we don't know what they're going to do but ultimately what if they end up saying that donald trump has to be on the ballot but also that he is not immune from prosecution and allows the special counsel to go forward.

what do you think of that? >> that's probably where we are headed. i ju want to point out constitutional conservatives, they screamed all during the obama years about how much they love the constitution, they hug the constitution like a teddy bear. suddenly they are radical democrats. they say oh, we want the american people to do whatever they want to, we don't believe we have these constitutional guardrails to make sure that democracy doesn't elect popular, crazy people. democracy can elect popular crazy people. john gaudy might have been elected president. who knows? certain people are -- treasonous traders. they can't become president. suddenly the constitution doesn't matter to conservatives. as long as donald trump continue his march, his runaway train backed power, all principals go out the window. it's bizarre to watch. >> thanks to both of you. cnn supreme analyst is here

after attending the high court hearing. john give us your big picture on the historic arguments you hearing today. >> jake, you and i kept comparing this to the bush free gore. early on you could feel the momentum was on one side. they really expressed the strongest skepticism for the colorado voters. jonathan mitchell, who was representing donald trump, you had a pretty easy time. and as you just commented, 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 atmospherically, tell us, -- >> that was different. remember during bush fee gore, remember that it hung on to one vote. you and i thought once they cut off the votes in florida, because of the year 2000, that the court was going to rule for george w. bush. indeed it did. but there was a lot more tension among the justices, a lot of interrupting, rapid fire questions. this was much more tepid.

not only could you feel quickly where it was going, the rhythm was not confrontational. the rhythm was not confrontational among the nine. i've told many times how they talk to each other during oral arguments. they make it their own case to each other. that was not happening. >> in bush fee gore? >> in this case. in this case you could feel that they were not making the case to each other. there was enough of them that came into this argument, ready to reject the colorado voters position. so it was just much lower. and jake, this is something you would appreciate, we stayed until the bitter end. you can't believe how many reporters left in the middle of this thing. >> is that right? >> yeah. people had, deadlines and -- >> they can continue to hear it. but you could feel, by the time jonathan mitchell, donald trump's lawyer, left, you could kind of feel where things were going. and then very quickly, when jason murray got up for the

colorado voters, alina came in and said what you're asking for is extraordinary. >> interesting. and for anyone interested in reading what tension looks like, go read justice stevens dissent in bush fee gore. that is anger. that is tension. and we didn't really hear that today. we will have much more on today's historic day at the supreme court. when sanchez and keeler will break up our coverage after this break. i'll see you at four for the lead.