course. i have known biden over 30 years, he was the same way 30 years ago. the gaps are built in to the biden appeal. he has been the same guy. some of the obama people use to snicker about it, but he did not hurt him when he ran in 2020 and beat donald trump. and they can turn the tables and say, wait a minute, donald trump was saying that nikki haley was in charge of security at the capitol? he was saying, we would get into world war ii if joe biden gets into the white house, he has a long list of really frightening mental gaps of his own. >> paul, we thank you so much for joining us for this breaking news. special counsel robert hur not recommending obviously that there would be a charge of handling of classified documents, but obviously raising a lot of questions. >> we are also getting a

statement, just moments ago from former president donald trump describing this as a double standard. of course, cnn will keep you posted with the very latest and send you to jake tapper with "the lead." the breaking news, the special counsel with harsh words, but no criminal charges for president biden. "the lead" starts right now. a rather scathing report out from special counsel robert hur noting that president biden also held onto classified documents, but unlike in donald trump's case, he will not face charges. this sites in part biden's age and faulty memory, making him sympathetic and difficult to prosecute. we will dive into this breaking news report. donald trump's rather good day at the u.s. supreme court, his legal team arguing why he should be kept on the ballot in colorado and beyond. the plaintiff and her attorney on the case will join us live.

a jarring ruling for former trump advisor peter navarro. welcome to "the lead." off the bat today, two big stories with the u.s. supreme court involving donald trump, which could impact his eligibility in the 2024 presidential race. first, we need to get to the breaking news. a report just released from special counsel robert hur into president biden's handling of classified documents when he wears --was vice president. documents securely stored at his home. they include photos like this one, showing where the classified material was kept, under his tb, in his delaware home, in numerous unlocked, unauthorized locations. classified documents about afghanistan in his garage, in an old box, surrounded by household the treatise. in mr. biden's main floor office, basement didn't. page 1 of the executive summary reads quote, our investigation

uncovered evidence that president biden willfully retained, and disclose kevin classified materials after his vice presidency me when he was a private citizen, but the next paragraph goes on to say, quote, we conclude the evidence does not establish mr. biden's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, prosecution of mr. biden is unwarranted. one big reason for that, according to special counsel is on page 219 quote, we have also considered that a trial mr. biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory. the report notes that president biden's memory issues are significant stating quote, he did not remember even within several years when his son, beau, died. evan pettis is coming through the report. evan, for a report that

concluded that they will not bring criminal charges, it is pretty scathing. >> right, jake. this report spares very, very little here for the president of the united states and his legal team of course is very, very angry because of that i will read you just a part of this report, which goes over-- again, they talk about how they interviewed 147 witnesses, 7 million documents that they reviewed during the course of this 15 month investigation. i will read a part of what they say, our investigation uncovered evidence that president biden willfully retained and disclosed classified materials after his vice presidency, when he was a private citizen. these materials included marked, classified documents of military foreign policy in afghanistan, notebooks containing mr. biden's hand written entries of issues of national security and foreign policy, implicating sensitive

intelligence sources and methods. they go want to point out that fbi agents recovered from unlocked drawers in the offices and basement of mr. biden's delaware home, a set of six notebooks that he used as vice president. evidence shows that he knew that the notebooks contained classified information. as you pointed out, jake, the bottom line here is that we have a conclusion of an investigation with no charges against the president of the united states. what robert hur and investigators say, it is not just because the oj, the justice department has rules against indicting a sitting president. they point out that for a number of reasons, there are a number of mitigating factors here, including, they believe, that joe biden would be able to present a credible defense that essentially-- what he did retain, he forgot about.

one of the things they say, is that he would be able to present himself as a sub of vedic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory. the report goes on, jake, to point out a lot of problems with the way classified documents are handled. they point out, going back to president reagan left office with a number of notebooks that he kept notes from, which included classified information over his eight years he served as president. he kept those documents and there is no indication that the justice department ever investigated that. one of the important things that will happen as a result of this 345 page report, jake, is the inevitable comparison with donald trump. you read just a little while ago, donald trump reacting to this report. robert hur goes on to point out, there are important differences between the trump

investigation and this one, including the fact that donald trump refused to turn over the classified documents when he received a subpoena from the court demanding that he return the documents. he also engaged in obstruction, instructing witnesses to lie, attempted to hide documents when the fbi came to mar-a-lago to try to retrieve them. important contacts and differences between the trump investigation and this one. one other thing of note, jake, i think we should point out, the fact that this is a report that again goes into scathing detail of the various ways that joe biden mishandled classified documents. he shared classified information with a ghost writer that he was working on a memoir after his vice presidency in 2017. that ghost writer provided important recordings of his conversations, which show that joe biden at least

knew that he had classified documents. i will read you a part of what he says. there is a part of the recording where he says, just found all of the classified stuff downstairs. again, that is the most damning piece of evidence that indicates joe biden knew he was taking home classified information and have kept it when he was not supposed to, jake. >> evan pettis, thank you so much. let's go to mj lee at the white house. how has president biden or his attorneys responded to this report? >> the white house is certainly leaning into the special counsel's decision to not bring charges, basically saying, this is what they had expected all along. they are also really making a point of highlighting the full cooperation they say president biden and his team gave to the special counsel's office, sitting down for a five hour interview, according to the president, whose put out a

statement himself the weekend that the war in israel broke out, turning over documents as soon as they were discovered. all of this, they say, shows what they have said all along, that the president does take matters of classified documents very seriously. it is very clear, jake me that the white house is raising very serious issues that they see with the special counsel's investigation. as you were talking about with evan, many references in that report about memory and recall problems that they say the president clearly has, including when he was being interviewed with the special counsel's office, including this reference to a jury, potentially finding him to be a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory. when if you look at the statement from the white house special counsel, it says, we disagree with the number of inaccurate and inappropriate comments in the special counsel's report. nonetheless, the most important decision the special counsel made, that no charges were

warranted, is firmly based on facts and evidence. if you look at the report, you know actually exactly what it is they find inappropriate about the investigation, because it says in the report that they do not believe that the report's treatment of the president's memory is accurate. the report uses highly presidential language to describe a commonplace occurrence among witnesses. that is not being able to recall events that took place many years ago. it goes on to say that those comments have no place in a department of justice report. that is a serious issue that they are taking. the other issue we are seeing the white house take with this report is really the length and scope of the report itself, that it was unnecessarily long and detailed. take a look at the statement from the president's personal attorney, bob bauer. he says, special counsel cannot retain from investigative access, perhaps unsurprising given the intense pressures of the current political environment. whatever the impact of those pressures on the final report

clouds department regulations. basically they are saying, a 15 month investigation, 173 interviews, 147 witnesses, all of that to ultimately not bring charges against the president, again, as the white house has said all along, they believed would be the conclusion that i could guarantee you, it does not matter to republicans, the former president, donald trump, critics of the president who are going to seize on this whether or not charges were brought, they will be seizing on the detailed regions of the memory issue of the special counsel's report, alleges the president has to make the point that this is somebody who is too old to be president and has mental cognitive issues. that is something the white house will be pretty serious about. thank you so much. this is a damning report for the president, even if it is not criminal. donald trump has just reacted to it.

we have a lot to discuss. we will be right back. stay with us.

we are back with breaking news, special counsel robert hur releasing a statement saying, president biden willfully retained and disclosed

national security information while he was a private citizen, but the president will not face charges after this year-long investigation. the report concluded that prosecutors would not be able to prove that president biden intended to break the law. president biden is talking about this now. let's listen in. >> no charges shall be brought in this case. as many of you know, this was an exhaustive investigation, going back literally more than 14 years-- 40 years when i became a united states senator, as a kid. i was a kid. 29 years old. special counsel acknowledged, i cooperated completely. i did not throw up any roadblocks. i saw no delays. in fact, i was so determined to give special counsel what they needed, i went forward with a five hour in-person interview over the

two days of october 8th and ninth last year, even though israel had just been attacked by hamas, on the 7th. i was literally in the middle of handling an international crisis. i was especially pleased to see the special counsel make clear the stark differences between this case and donald trump. as special counsel wrote, and i quote, several material distinctions between mr. trump's case and mr. biden's are clear. by the way, this is a republican counsel. most notably, after given multiple chances, this is a continuation of the quote, he returned classified documents and avoided prosecution here at mr. trump allegedly did the opposite. this is a continuing quote, according to the indictment, he is not only refused to return documents for many months, he also obstructed justice by enlisting others to destroy evidence and lie about it. in contrast, mr. biden turning in classified documents to the national archives, department of justice considered to a search of multiple locations, including his homes, and set

for a volunteer interview and in other words cooperated with the investigation. that is the distinction, among others. [ applause ] bottom line is, special counsel in my case decided against moving forward with any charges. this matter is now closed. [ applause ] i will continue to do what i have always done, stay focused on my job, like you do. my job is being president. that means, going to work with all of you every single day i can. thank you for being great partners. just this week, house democrats showed how united you are. we defeated alejandro mayorkas impeachment resolution. getting out of his hospital bed to command a boat, i talked with him, after, not before. they defeated the israeli only

supplemental. they weren't easy votes for you, but all of you came through in a big way. all of this just shows that when we are united-- >> all right, president biden talking about things other than the special counsel report to me so let's break away and go and check in with mj lee, who covers biden for us at the white house. mj, the president there taking what is positive news for him in this report. no criminal charges. special counsel hur might have been critical of biden, but he pointed out distinctions between the biden case and trump case that are not flattering to mr. trump, president biden season on those and declaring victory, in a sense. >> which is got a pretty clear distillation of how we expect president biden and other white house officials to talk about

this report going forward me basically saying, no charges were brought at the end of this investigation. president biden and his team fully cooperated with the special counsel's office. we heard him say, this case is now closed. in other words, he would like to move on. he said, he was pleased in particular with the contrast that robert hur drew between his team and his handling of the classified documents investigation, and donald trump and all of the allegations surrounding his handling of classified documents in contrast. the reality is that they can now go forward and use robert hurr's own words, are drawing out contract, which they have been doing for some time, the fact that they turned in these classified documents right away to the national archives is something they have talked about. the fact that they consented to the search of multiple locations, that he set for a voluntary interview. he did that the weekend the war broke out. this is the contrast

they will continue making. of course, as we were talking about before, does not take away the political ammunition that this gives the president's critics and republicans, including the former president >> let's talk about that now with homes who covers president trump in palm beach, florida. president trump has been given a gift of sorts with the special counsel's reports connoting specifically quote, president biden's diminished faculties and faulty memory, and given specific instances that are crunchy, to use a word, and yet, my guess is that donald trump, instead of seizing upon that, will complain about a two tiered standard of justice and how unfair this is that president biden is not being indicted, am i right? >> and you guessed right! you guessed right! you win the prize. i want to say something before i read the statement. i think it is

important. most of his supporters, not all of the supporters, people consider supporting him will believe the statement i am about to read. there are inaccuracies, i will not read the whole thing. we will go through some of those inaccuracies. as you said, jake, this was a political gift of sorts to donald trump, an ability for him to blur these two cases together, to be able to say it is a two-tiered justice system, and all of the conversation around biden's mental faculties is something his team is already seizing upon across social media and will continue pushing out. here is what he sent out, this has now been proven to be a two- tiered justice system and unconstitutional selective prosecution. the biden documents case is 100 times different. this is . he says, i did nothing wrong, and i cooperated far more, what biden did is outrageously

criminal, and it continues. again, as we know, and as we have said over and over again, these two cases are very different, particularly when it comes to obstruction. we do know that biden was much more cooperative, and willing to turn over those documents that donald trump. in fact, there had to be a subpoena to get those documents from donald trump, plus, there have been reports of witness tampering that the special counsel is looking into to try and protect those documents and keep them with donald trump. again, i cannot stress enough how politically this is going to play out. it is something that is really going to be amplified by trump and his team. they are going to blur the lines of these two cases to say that he should have also been charged. they are focusing on that willfully retained line over and over again saying, if he willfully retained documents, why is it that he is not facing charges? this is why this is a political gift, as you said, something they can double down on and something you will hear over and over again. that, combined with that language in that report that talks about

biden's mental faculties, something donald trump was already doing on the campaign trail. >> let's bring in senior legal analyst, assistant attorney for the southern district of new york. ellie, let's do a little fact check here. obviously, what president biden is accused of is serious. special counsel hur compares what biden did to previous presidents, reagan, et cetera , and says that those are similar, but he says, when it comes to the allegations set forth in the indictment of mr. trump and president biden just read this, that has more serious, aggregating facts. is president trump correct when he says what president biden did as a legal matter is worse? >> he is coming from a opposite world. there is a lot of bad news in this report, we will get to that in a moment.

virtually every word of donald trump's statement is absolutely false. for example, he says quote, i cooperated far more than joe biden. to the contrary, joe biden, once the commits were discovered, cooperated completely with special counsel. donald trump obstructed justice, try to get rid of evidence, try to get witnesses to lie, complete opposite conduct. he said, joe biden had 50 times more documents than i had. we don't have a precise count in this report, but donald trump had hundreds of classified documents. this report deals with two batches that joe biden had of classified documents. then, donald trump come repeat the entire false proclaimed that he is protected by the presidential records act, that has nothing to do with this. >> the fact that they did not prosecute, they chose to not prosecute, first of all, they could not prosecute president biden now anyway, but the fact that they are not recommended prosecution when he leaves office, does that qualify as an exoneration? >> the good news is there are no charges and they don't recommend charges. the bad news is pretty much everything else.

let's run through them real quick, some of the findings robert hur makes. joe biden retained classified documents, they were marked as classified, they were top- secret, the highest level. they had to do with our foreign policy, national security, joe biden knew it. he is on tape referring to the classified documents in 2017, when he was out of office. and, i think the most damning is joe biden disclosed that information to his ghostwriter. that is problematic. let me point this one thing out. here is a sentence that robert hur writes on page 1 of his report. president biden willfully retained and disclosed classified materials after his vice presidency. do you know what crime donald trump was charged with two counts one through 32? willful retention of national defense information. it almost tracks word from word from what robert hur finds here. the next question, why didn't robert hur recommend charges? you cannot charge under doj with a sitting president the answer is, it is prosecutorial

discretion. they're supposed to think about factors like, how will this play with the jury? are there defenses? in a way that is probably politically damaging, he talks about his age, memory, and mental capacity. >> yeah, but we said, while we were covering the trump classified documents case, that it seemed likely. a lot of our legal experts, i think including you, that if trump had just turned them over and cooperated the way that president biden did, he might not have been charged with anything. >> i still think that is absolutely true. you have to look, first of all, did the person have documents? did they know about them, where they classified and sensitive? yes, yes, for both trump and biden. you have to look at factors like, was the person cooperative? turn things over on the one hand, which joe biden did. and donald trump did not just lightly obstruct, he all out obstructs. he tries to destroy physical evidence, tribes intimidate,

influence witnesses to not tell the truth. he tries to hide documents from his own lawyer, that makes a big, big difference to a prosecutor who is making that not always black and white decision of charge or no charge. >> biden's special counsel, the one going after him said that trump quote, obstructed justice by enlisting others to destroy evidence, and then to like about it, as if he was anticipating that donald trump was going to come out and say, see, it is the same thing. >> he puts it in there on page 10 or 11, pretty high up. >> two things i think are unfortunate, robert hur, let's make sure we understand who he is. he was a trump nominee to u.s. attorney a few years ago when trump was president, then merrick garland appointed him to be special counsel in this case. it is hard for me to see either side saying, he is some sort of politically motivated hack, an experience prosecutor, a trump

nominee. garland chosen to do this job. he seems to be a strong pick. donald trump will make a motion to dismiss his case based on this. there is a motion in the law called selective prosecution. it is very difficult to succeed on. i don't think trump will succeed. what you have to do is show someone who behaved similarly to meet was not charged, while i was. i think he could well-- he's a prosecutor, he knows about this motion. that motion will come from donald trump. this gives him some father for that. i don't think he will succeed here now he will say, see how similar my case is to joe biden , i got charged, he did not. >> by the way, if donald trump had not put out this false statement, we would have spent the last 10 minutes talking entirely about joe biden and these gaping descriptions of his memory and faculty. this comes of course on the same day that leaders of the biden's 2024 campaign are meeting to chart their way forward in this big election

year. my next guest is essentially a voice for biden's mission, led his communications team. knows him very well. we will be back in a moment.

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. xfinity rewards presents: '1st and 10gs.' xfinity is giving away ten grand to a new lucky winner for every first and ten during the big game. enter daily through february 9th for a chance to win 10gs.

with the ultimate speed, power, and reliability the xfinity 10g network is made for streaming live sports. because it's only live once. join xfinity rewards on the xfinity app or go to xfinity1stand10gs.com for your chance to win. we are back with breaking news. president joe biden willfully retained classified information, according to a scathing account from special counsel robert hur, but the president will not face charges. prosecutors would not be able to prove, they don't think, that biden intended to break the law. the reason behind that is interesting. the report also cut retains a assessment that president biden has memory issues. quote,

memory was significantly limited and it would be difficult to get a jury to conduct sympathetic, elderly man with a poor memory, and quote. this from the report, biden did not remember when he was vice president, or getting on the first day of the interview when his term ended. if it was 2013, when did i stop being vice president? and when his term began, quote, in 2009, and i still vice president? he did not remember even in several years, the report says, when his son, beau died, may 2015. although, the white house and biden's attorney rejected the description of his memory. we should note, let us bring in white house director of communication kate benefiel and seen in special correspondent. kate, i am sure you are excited to answer my questions on this. >> i am always happy. >> i am sure there are

democratic voters out there. pause say a majority of democrats are concerned president biden is too old to be president. i am sure some of them today are looking at these news reports and saying, this guy might have been a great president, but should not be the nominee. >> look, there is some editorializing in this report about biden's memory. when you think of what it takes to sit down for one of these interviews, asked to recall information, dates, specific about things that happened six, seven, eight years earlier. >> do not know when you are vice president? >> he has got a lot on his plate. this interview happened after the attack on israel, so he had been cut with that. anybody sitting down for an interview like that, being asked for specific dates over and over again, you will not remember every single one. i think, let's look at what the report actually says to me which is, this was a year-long investigation, 7 million documents, hundreds of

witnesses, and no charges recommended. the special counsel here did probably the most detailed and involved investigation you can do in this situation, look for every opportunity to say, joe biden acted in a way that deserved charges, and did not find that. the other clear thing we see in this report is the distinction between joe biden's case and donald trump's case, where you have the special counsel saying, donald trump intentionally obstructed justice, joe biden saying, take whatever you need, look at whatever you want, i am an open book on this. >> jamie, what are the white house's options here? as a pr matter to me as a legal matter this is done, a w, but a political and pr matter, this could be bad, but they are choosing to emphasize the positive. >> i think it is bad. i don't think there is a question about it. it is true. everything kate said about his cooperating. i covered this story from the beginning. they absolutely cooperated.

things are found in an office that have been locked up for years. trump will try to say, look, this was the same thing. but, the fact that they did not bring charges linked to these memory issues about his son, about when he was vice president , these are poignant things that people remember. i think it probably won't be long before some biden surrogates reminded people that donald trump just confused nikki haley and nancy pelosi. we have two elderly people running, but i think this is bad news for the white house. >> let's talk about that a little bit more. this is a particularly bad week for this report and its comments about president biden's faculties and memory to come up. twice this week, he has acted as if he in 2021 spoke to european leaders who have been dead for years. once, he confused frangois, who

died in 1996 with emmanuel macron, who is still very much alive. another time, he was referring to angle merkel, until recent, the chancellor of germany, and referred to him as hellman cole, who i think died in 2017. this memory issue is already out there. >> i want to know how many voters in michigan, wisconsin do you think know the difference between-- >> no, no but they know-- >> you asked. or will cast their vote for president based on whether someone is naming emmanuel macron? his name, they probably don't know. >> it is not about that, it is faculty and memory, and whether somebody they perceive is confident-- competent. you saw something like 48% received donald trump to be competent at 32% received president biden. not saying,

that is accurate, but that is the perception. >> they will look at, how is he doing the job? what is he getting done? they will listen to what he has to say as he is traveling and campaigning over the next nine months. they will hear donald trump saying, nikki haley, nancy pelosi, inverting their names. they will hear him saying all sorts of things that have shall we say a casual relationship with the truth. this is a campaign where you will have donald trump out spewing invective every day, talking about retribution. people will make a decision about which person will be the best person for them, will make their lives better, not who can name emmanuel macron. >> kate bedingfield, appreciate it. the other major legal story, historic arguments revealed donald trump had a good day at the u.s. supreme court. learn why and hear from key players in the room in a moment. stay with us.

we are back with another major story. colorado's 2024 presidential ballots will likely include former president donald trump, despite the state's unprecedented effort to remove you from the ballot. the united states supreme court heard oral arguments after the colorado supreme court ruled the trump was ineligible for office under the so-called insurrection clause. under the 14th amendment of the constitution. look, it takes a lot to unify this very divided supreme court. today, all nine supreme court justices seemed to display at least some skepticism of the arguments representing the colorado voters who challenged trump's eligibility and there's questions seemed to suggest potential for the ballot dispute. justice elena kagan, we might remind you was appointed by president obama. >> i think that the question

you have to confront is why a single state should decide who gets to be president of the united states. in other words, this question of whether a former president is disqualified for insurrection to be president again, just say it. it sounds awfully national to me. >> in other words, while colorado is the focus, the high court's decision could have major ramifications across the nation in other states, pending litigation to remove trump from their 2024 ballots. a ruling in favor of colorado, which is possible, could send the election into a tailspin, which would be something that the u.s. supreme court might not want to do. paula reid takes us inside the historic hearing with a deeper look into the justice's questions and what the questions might indicate about the eventual ruling. >> in the most anticipated supreme court case of the year, the justices signaling that

they will side with donald trump on the question of whether he is eligible for the 2024 ballot. the former president did not attend thursday's arguments. most justices did not address his role in the january 6th insurrection, instead, focusing on legal arguments around the 14th amendment. trump's lawyer, jonathan mitchell, an experienced supreme court advocate argued, trump is not covered by the so-called insurrectionist man. >> a ruling confirms the decision below would not only violate term limits, but take away the votes of potentially tens of millions of americans. >> and argued, january 6 was not even an insurrection, only one justice asked about whether it was. >> is that a chaotic effort to overthrow the government, is not an insurrection? >> this was a riot menotti insurrection. >> jason murray argued for colorado voters who won their case in the lower court. >> president trump disqualified himself from public office.

states have the power to ensure that their citizens' electoral votes are not wasted on a candidate who is constitutionally barred from holding office. >> the justices appeared much more skeptical of his argument. >> do you have contemporaneous examples-- and by contemporaneous, i mean shortly after the adoption of the 14th amendment, where the states disqualified national candidates , not its own candidates, but national candidates. >> 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 very ahistorical. the whole point of the 14th amendment was to restrict state power. >> and questioned the consequences of a ruling in favor of colorado and other states then following suit.

>> it will come down to a handful of states that will decide the presidential election. that is a pretty daunting consequence. >> even liberal justice elena kagan asked this. >> i think the question you have to confront is more a single state should decide who gets to be president of the united states? >> it was murray's first time arguing before the high court. he engaged in several contentious exchanges with the judges, and even as a former clerk, he did not stop just as gorgeous from scolding murray. >> no, no, we are talking about section 3. please don't change the hypothetical. >> even though the argument seemed to go well for trump, he still wanted the final word, addressing reporters outside mar-a-lago. met can you take the person leading everywhere and say, hey, we will not let you run? i think it is tough to do, but i am leaving it to the supreme court. >> it is unclear how long it will take the justices to issue their own opinion or the chief

justice will likely take as long as he needs to build consensus across party lines and come up with a compromise across a very likely ruling that shows unity. this is an institution that shows increasingly squinty about ethics, partnership. this is an opportunity to allay some of those concerns. jake, this is as much of a test for chief justice john roberts as for donald trump. joining us now, norma anderson, a 91-year-old republican from colorado, the lead plaintiff. she is doing to keep donald trump off the ballots. her name is on the legal filings at the center of the arguments at the supreme court today. don sherman, who represents norma anderson and evicted executive vice president and chief counsel for citizens for responsibility and ethics in washington, a good government group.

state senator in colorado, you are the former state majority l leader in the state house and senate. that's how much of a republican you are. >> correct. what was it like to be at the center of this case? >> we don't know until they tell us. >> regardless of that, you are now more than ever, part of history. >> yes, but somebody has to do it. why not me. >> and do you feel proud if the court goes against you? will this have been worth it? >> yes, absolutely. >> why? >> because my reason is i'm concerned about our democracy. if we don't do something about saving it, i see it slipping. i've lived long enough at 91 to go through many, many presidents, none of them

challenged the election as this one did. which tells me that he will challenge other constitutional things and other things in democracy. he has yet to accept that he lost. >> and donna crew filed this colorado lawsuit. you heard the supreme court justices earlier today. are you satisfied with how jason murray represented your cause and do you see any scenario where you get the verdict you want? >> first, i'm absolutely satisfied with his performance. the justices asked tough questions in part because we have asked them to make a historic decision. not just for norma and the voters that we represent, but for the republican voters of colorado and perhaps the nation. so it wasn't surprising that both sides got skeptical and

incisive questions but certainly, the stakes are higher on you know, if we prevail. and so it's not surprising that the justices had tougher questions for jason, which i thought he handled ably. >> lots of legal analysts think the other side is going to win and i'm wondering if you share that opinion or if you, if hope springs eternal for your side. >> i always wait till the end. because i can't guess an outcome. every time i try, i'm wrong. >> what about the argument that, i'm not going to go through the entire case again, that if your side wins this case whenever they rule, that just means that this will be something that the other side uses against a democratic president appropriately. for instance, we've already heard some republican governors

say well maybe what's going on at the border. that president biden is not doing enough to take care of. maybe that counts as insurrection or rebellion. >> well, what everyone forgets is our trial judge found trump guilty of insurrection. >> right. >> and he had a chance to answer the charges. >> trump did. yeah. >> yes. >> so therefore they would have to find somebody guilty. >> so the other thing is what if as other legal experts are anticipating, the supreme court goes forward with some sort of splitting the baby decision and rules against you on this but rules that donald trump does not have immunity in that other case that is working its way through the system or at the very least, they let the u.s. appeals court standing decision stand. would you be okay with that?

i know it's not what you want but how would you feel? >> i'd be very happy if he lost immunity. >> what about you? >> i think the immunity question raises something interesting, which trump's lawyers raised at the oral argument today. he suggests that states can enforce section three. suggests that courts can't enforce section three then when asked about the criminal statute, which isn't sort of perfectly matched with section three, he also said that the president had immunity. the entirety of trump's argument is that he is somehow special and that section three and doesn't apply to him. that the federal criminal statute can't apply to him and that he is above the law. 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 too conservative for california. he voted for trump twice and supported republicans for years, including far right conservatives. adam schiff, the leading democrat, defended democracy against trump and the insurrectionists. he helped build affordable housing, lower drug costs, and bring good jobs back home. the choice is clear. i'm adam schiff, and i approve this message.