certainly for you. this was your first time arguing before the supreme court. you were in front two justices you clerked for. what was the whole experience like? >> it's always an amazing experience to be up before a court, especially the u.s. supreme court. there's a certain sense of price arguing in front of my former bosses. it was certainly intense. i didn't expect them to pull any punches on a case of this magnitude. certainly they didn't, but we never expected the court would be willing to do a hard thing like this without asking really hard questions. >> they did ask hard questions. we were playing some of questions from the justices who expressed skepticism at the arguments that you were making to uphold the colorado supreme court ruling. here is some of what they said.

>> there is a question of whether a former president is disqualified for insurrection to be president again, is, you know, just saying it, it sounds awfully national to me. >> the thing that is troubling to me is i totally understand your argument, but they were listing people that were barred, and the president is not there. >> so, jason, what specifically did you hear that gives you hope they will rule in your favor? >> certainly i think the hardest questions they asked is whether the states have a role to place here in enforcing disqualifications for the presidency. there's a long history of states excluding ineligible candidates, whether they're underage, foreign bore or fail to meet other qualifications for i've. i do feel there was a sense that maybe this provision of the 14th

amendment should be different, though when i think the court digs into that issue, they'll be hard pressed to say why this should be different. states run elections, so the normally way these things work, states decide who's based on the ballot. if you're an insurrectionist who violated your oath to the constitution, our constitution says you don't get to run again unless you have amnesty. certainly that was the big pressure point today. >> obviously this is the first time you've had a chance to do an interview and talk about what you went through. some of the skepticism that was expressed, one of the points was from justice brown jacks, she said why didn't they put the word "president" in the very enumerated list. she says they were listing people that are barred, and president is not there. i want to give you a chance, how did you rebut that particular

specific question from justice brown jackson. >> the main reason is it's so obviously included. the 14th amendment covers senators and representatives who aren't office holders in a technical/legal sense, and covers presidential electors, and then it covers anyone who holds any office under the united states. we all know the president holds an office. he swears an oath of office. the constitution calls the presidency the office of the president of the united states. the history is very clear people at the time knew that phrase referred to president. rebels like robert e. lee or jefferson davis, the head of the confederacy couldn't have any office, including the pre presidency, unless they got amnesty. historically speaking, that

point was well understood. >> you obviously clerked, as you pointed out, the pride you felt for arguing in front of justices you clerked for. why one state should be making a decision for the country, right? the federalist question. justice kagan says, why should a single state have the the determination to make this decision. you got that question from a justice you know well. you clerked for her. what did you say there, and what did you read into, if you were able to read anything into, how she took it, how she responded? >> the point we tried to make in response is this is not colorado deciding this question for the nation. we are asking the u.s. supreme court to decide this question for the nation, because this is a federal constitutional question. the u.s. supreme court is the last word on whether or not

donald trump is qualified or not until our constitution to hold office. certainly it comes up to the court through colorado courts, and that's how big cases come up all the time is through the state courts. we tried to make the case that this is a time for the supreme court to rise up to a pivotal moment, and enforce the constitution, even when doing so is incredibly difficult and even when it's incredibly controversial. i'm hope that point landed. >> jason, i very much appreciate your time. thank you so much. >> thank you. he was the one responding to all those questions in the supreme court today. everyone is with me now. you just heard jason talk about the key pushback he thought about, and also his response to the officer question, that it was took place obvious essentially to be included. of course, the presidency is included. what do you make of those -- his responses that he gave to the

justices' questions. >> i thought he had a bad day, maybe a weak case, but it was even worse than he described it. i don't think the justices were focused on whether or not states can do this. their questions, including from the liberal justices with are about how they should overturn the colorado supreme court. justice jackson said, for we overturn it this way, what do we have left, the federal courts able to try to keep him off the ballot? >> obviously they were at a procedural juncture than figuring out the merits? >> yeah let's finetune how to impose the remedy. so i don't think it was a good day for him. it looks a 9-0, 8-1 decision. >> and if it's 8-1, who -- >> justice soto mayor.

>> i will say, that what he's saying is not out of the ether. i think there's many attorneys who feld he had been dealt a bad hand. a point is that it appears on the procedural ways to overturn as opposed to the merits. >> the term that comes up off is offering, they're trying to find a way out. jason makes some compelling arguments. if you're just listening to jason, okay, we understand it, it actually makes sense, but i think we all recognize the gravity of what the supreme court is being asked to do. even if you're -- quite frankly, i have a lot of liberal friends wondering why justice jackson is asking the questions, because they seem more pro-conservative,

more pro-gop, and my response is, this is a very serious issue. if we decided one way with respect to donald trump, always ask yourself, what happens in the reverse? >> i will say, if i take everything out of this, there's a level that seems absurd to suggests that -- that would be an officer. i understand you have to have a conversation about it constitutionally. oismg this is a nonlegal opinion. i think the president is a officer of the united states, but number two, you know, this man was investigated for insurrection, was not charged with it.

>> he's about to too that has the word in it, and i always thought for the lay person, that wa was. >> the answer is so clear, and there's a public interested in them. >> up through the courts, they can just say stop, this is decided, he's on the ballot. >> if there's something -- what

about -- we're going the other way, but i raise this very importantly. >> does that does it do that? >> trump will say, look at how they tried to come after me. le justices i point, you know and very quickly, what he'll do also is draw the line through. >> i think, though, we can all

take great comfort in this. i view this as the big deck clearing. >> that moves the january 6th case ahead, and until ly who benefits? when they go to vote in november. >> one of the thing that you do raise, i do think about is how much the courts are affected with the elect, whether it's the supreme court or federal court, how much they're impacting this election. isn't this, a, what we're trying to avoid after 200? >> and we have seen that. thank you all very much. stay with us, our breaking news coverage continues.

the white house tonight is slamming a special counsel report on biden's handling of classified documents. no charges were filed, but it shines an explicit light, and it used the word "memory" in talking about biden's memory lapses. putin talks to tucker carlson. we'll tell you if there's any news in the two-hour extravagancza and the message putin was trying to stand. and election night in nevada, why even republicans are calling it rigged for donald trump tonight. john king is outfront.

breaking news. special counsel finding that president biden willfully retained classified documents, but he will not be charged. the doj releasing new evidence of documents found. this mangled box was inside the garage, in which there were several folders relating to afghanistan and notebooks of classified information biden said he used for a book he was writing. biden voluntarily handed everything on the floor. while the special counsel says charges are not warranted. robert hur does raise questions about his memory. he says his memory was significantly limited.

evan perez is out front. unclear what was being said there, whether it was a comment about memory, or being people evasive in depositions "i don't recall" that is so common. >> reporter: this is a very tough report for the president and certainly for his reelection campaign, but the important part of this is obviously the finding that robert hur says they have uncovered evidence that the president willfully retained classified information and also that he shared that classified information. he shared that with a ghost writer who was helping him write a memoir back in 2016, that he knew he had classified documents that he knew he had this classified information in his home when he was a private citizen, no longer vice president, in 2017.

but, importantly, robert hur also found he didn't believe he found enough evidence to be able to sustain a prosecution of the president of the united states. that goes beyond saying that, even if there wasn't a prohibition on bringing charges against a sitting president, he believes there was not enough evidence to be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that joe biden knew he was violating the law. they also say that some of the notes he took, he believed he was entitled to bring home. >> evan, i want to read something from the actual report. it says -- mr. biden juan emphatic, saying the notebooks are my property, and every president has done the exact same thing. and by nature, he said this. >> i did the presidential records act, i have the right to look at stuff.

>> there is so many huge differences in these cases. yet, you are going to have a narrative from some, trump was charged, biden wasn't. we know that. that's the country we live in right now. could we just be clear what the differences are? >> we can certainly direct people to this report by robert hur, somebody appointed by donald trump to be a u.s. attorney. in his report, he lays out the big differences between this investigation, joe biden invited the fbi to come and do searches. he turned over information, turned over the classified documents as soon as they were uncovered, called the fbi, had them retrieve it. in addition to that, cooperation which stands in contrast to donald trump, who not only refuse to do comply with a subpoena for the return of those documents from his home in mar-a-lago, but also allegedly

told people to lie and tried to move documents so the fbi couldn't find them. huge, huge distinction that robert hur himself points out in this report. >> thank you so much. john, i just want to put aside the memory question. it is an important one, important to try to understand, but you hear evan lay out why robert hur laid out the conclusions, the differences between -- it's my gosh, this is important. trump and his allies there say it's a double standard. they're already saying that. here is the question -- is this a issue politically for biden? >> that specific things i don't think should be an issue. saying it's a double standard doesn't fit the two cases in a fundamental way.

the fundamental difference is that he cooperated fully. his administration got a special prosecutor to investigate the president, a rep, and he handed over the documents. that is a world of difference from hoarding documents, refusing to cooperate, pushing back, and then trying to get people allegedly to obstruct justice on your behalf. a totally different universe. to blur the two, or to put them side by side, i think that's a moral relativism that doesn't help to clarify the stakes. >> we've seen there's tapes of move the stuffed after they were coming to get it, and look, the cases are very difficult, but nonetheless that would require an attention to detail by million and millions of people who have other things going on in their lives. >> it would have been better off to have joe biden indicted

today. >> you're saying politically. >> yes. the number one thing, the number one anvil on the head is the american people do not believe he has the mental acuity to serve as president today or for four more years. an independent third party comes along and says he can't remember when he was vice president, he can't remember when his own son passed away. i can't take this man in front of a jury, because he would be too sympathetic. he's too on the and forgetful. this was politically devastating. an indictment would have been better. >> indictments can never be better. >> really? >> every time trump gets one, his poll numbers go up. >> democrats should never aspired to be that at all until any circumstances, but i do agree. why in the world would this language be included in this report? i'm glad the white house

responded with alacrity, as they use the word, superfluous information. it's a terrible headline. most people will not pore through thinks documents. they'll get the sound bite, and that sound bite about his age and mental instability, why include that? >> so, this report goes through the memory and cognitive ability. it went beyond "i don't recall" which is a standard response in a deposition. biden couldn't remember when he stopped serves as vice president, the day of their first interview. also could not remember what his son died, and it continues that he showed diminished faculties. okay. what does that mean? i'm not asking you medically, john, but this is very serious.

people are not going to read this, but something like that -- >> that is the problem with the narratives driving the conversation. obviously the poll shows people are concerned about his age. that's a biologic fact that only moves in one direction. that said, i do think this election will be about things broader than one person ownership one personality. i think it will be almost a parliamentary style election. and there is questions why this level of detail was put in this point. but in this bizarre world we're in, we always talk how donald trump gets stronger from his indictments. i don't want to say joe biden is weaker from his exonerations. >> that's a good point. >> how can you read this and says he willfully retained it. the pictures of the boxes in

garage are no different than the pictures of the boxes in a bathroom. >> writing your autobiography, but telling people -- to move things because you have a subpoena. >> unfortunately if you read the notes, there are simple explanations that he is given and they can sign on to. unfortunately that's buried in the documents. >> why is the comment about mental faculties is in there. >> i don't understand the needs unless somebody's foot was on the gas or finger was on the scale, but you understand my point. i have no idea why you put that in the document. >> it's a warning. >> it seems beyond the scope of the conversation. >> i don't know if it's odd, because the white house pushback was, you know, the day he did the interview, it was the day

after the israel-hamas war shattered. are you telling me the mental faculties were mostly diminished when dealing with a crisis? >> i understand, saying he hadn't slept. i have to say something, john. i don't know if this is the last time we're together in this capacity, certainly not us, but, you know, there's a big thing, you're moving on to new adventures. i just want to say the very beginning of the show we were together on day one. that was almost 13 years in this case, becoming personal friends and professional -- such admiration for you. every step of the way, no matter what story happens. something happening, you go, john! and there he was. in the meantime he's written book after book after book, and we look better than ever. anyway, i just want to say, i

wish you the best. i know you just want to grow and fly. >> thank you. i love the whole team. greatest respect and appreciation for cnn. got to keep growing, and some great adventures ahead. >> yes, sorry and good-bye for this specific forum. >> just for now. >> we love you, john. >> thank you. next, our breaking news continues. i'll talk to ty cobb, his bold prediction from the beginning of the colorado case and how the justices would rule. does he stand by it? ukraine's zelenskyy naming a new replacement. the top commander is out. and a major spikeup that is change the course of the war with russia.

all right. we have breaking news. we have learned that president biden is going to give a statement at 7:45 eastern, so he's going to be speaking to the cam are. we understand thus far he's going to be given a statement. we don't know exactly what it's about. obviously it could be about what we heard today from the special

counsel. kevin liptak is at the white house. what should we expect here, kevin? >> reporter: they were added very last minute to the president's schedule, 7:45 from the diplomatic reception report. this comes after the special counsel report from robert hul. the report depicted a forgetful president. earlier this week, he did say here at the white house he would be taking questions from reporters today on thursday. obviously it is now quite late in the day. there is not entirely clear if he will be taking our questions, but we did hear him speak a bit earlier about this report when he was at a retreat of house

democrats in northern virginia, taking time to make sure that people heard declining to bring charges, and he saturday for that interview with robert hur in the days immediately following the october 7th terror attacks in israel, making the point he thought it was important to sit down, be fully transparent with the special counsel, but emphasizing he was also dealing with the crisis at the time. you'll probably hear a repetition of that, but perhaps more of a rebuttal of these claims. that's what you've been hearing from white house officials, fuming, really, calling it inappropriate and out of line.

>> kevin, i know you literally ran to the camera. when you talk about it in the diplomatic room, they said this was going to be a statement, but it sounds like from where it is and what you understand, there will be reporters in the room, so there is the possibility of questions. >> reporter: yes. >> so make more than a statement? >> there will be reporters in the room. having covered these types of events with president biden in the past, he often comes in, delivers a few minutes of rackets, and then opens the room to some questions. that's exactly what he did earlier this week. he delivered his ra, and then took questions from the reporters in the room. it was at that event he promised reporters to come back later this week to take questions. certainly this could be a venue to do that form the room would be set up for him to do something like that.

we'll see what he ends up deciding to do. reporters will be there in the room to ask him questions. whether he answers them or not remains to be seen. >> kevin, thank you very much. we do expect that the president of the united states will be making statements in about 11 minutes. this was not expected. it has just been added to the schedule, and the president will be speaking in a room with reporters, maybe taking questions. it could be, we anticipate, about the special counsel's decision not to charge him, though saying he did willfully retain documents, and talked about the president's tism minuteished faculties. we have bring it to you in full here. we want to focus on that decision that's going to be coming from the supreme court after today's hearing about whether trump can remain on the

ballot in the state of colorado. at the heart of that hearing, trump's attorney argued that january 6th was a riot, not an insurrection. he said it was a riot, not an insurrection. >> for an insurrection there needs to be an organized concerted effort to overthrow the government you have the united states through violence. >> so if it's a chaotic effort to overflow 9 government? >> we adopt concede it was an effort to overthrow the government. ty cobb, former trump white house lawyer. riot and insurrection aside for the moment, you have said from the very beginning once the colorado supreme court had ruled that trump was going to come off the ballot, that the supreme court would rule-0 in trump's favor. that's what you said at the beginning. from what you heard today, and we heard them all on audio, do you stand by that? >> i do.

i don't -- you know, i'm not not in which justice kagan was certainly having nonof this today. so i think it's important that, you know, there be at least one liberal justice, ideally three in the column that decides this case. it's important that the country understands this is not a political issue, but who the law requires. i do think that it is highly likely that it could be -- they will have seven, eight or nine votes. they will overturn this quickly. i'm not sure they can do it in two weeks, as ryan suggested, but perhaps they can. i would say a month is a good guess, plus or minus a week. >> you said the justices likely would that focus on whether

trump is an insurrectionist, but focus more on whether he was an officer. you heard justice brown jackson question that, saying it was really troubling to her that the president is not listed in article 3, when many other offices which are included under that were ename rated in her words there. what did you take away from her saying that? and being so specific? >> well, i think people -- the difficulty with construing the common says, common sense is not necessarily the touchstone. it does require specific language. for example, an officer of the united states, that phrase is used i think five times in the constitution, and virtually every instance it's clear it only refers to appointed

officers until article 2. when you add in the fact that they take -- as the clause says, officers who take an oath to support the constitution, the support of constitution oath is in article ii, required of officers of the united states subordinate to the president. so the president takes a different oath, by the way, to preserve, protect and defend. there's a lot of legalisms. they go into this analysis, but i think that that -- i think that issues is one of the potential silver bullets. the other potential silver bullet that the court spent a lot of time on today is the lack of authority of a state to act u.n. unilaterally. one of the seminal cases on this us, in re griffin, in which

chief justice chase writing as a circuit court justice, ruled a year after the amendment was passed that the insurrectionist clause could not be enforced unless congress had first passed a law. so, i think the jurisprudence could go either route or both. i think you'll see concurrences, perhaps a consent. that could slow things down in terms of the court getting everything out. >> so, ty, we are waiting in the next five minutes for the president of the united states will give a statement in the diplomatic room, and obviously as a former white house attorney, you know what that means. there may be reporters, there may be questions, nor do we know what it will be about.

obviously the context is the special counsel report, the searing report that president biden retained confidential documents, bud robert hur said because he cooperated and in part because of his memory, that's why they won't bring charges. what's your reaction to reading this, and to a specific focus on his memory? >> so. that's a question that's very personal for me. i served as a senior counsel for judge adams in the independent counsel investigation of hud, and we had to make a decision on two cabinet officers, one whom we declined on, in large part, because of health issues, but we didn't tell the world that. so, i think it's a legitimate

reason not to pros cute, but i'm not sure i would have put in in red lights. i also think that biden's cooperation is clouded a bit by the fact that, you know, it's based on the fact that when documents were found in his office two years ago, people alerted the proper authorities, but biden in 2017, seven years ago, acknowledged to his ghost writer that he had all these classified documents and actually shared them with him, to some degree. so, i think the cooperation with the special counsel is important. i mean, they didn't throw up any road blocks. they didn't go to court. they didn't destroy or move documents, put them in the pool, or whatever happens in mar-a-lago, but it's not quite as clean as it might have been.

well, ty, thank you very much. i appreciate it. as always, ty cobb. let's go back to the white house. kevin, what are you learning? >> reporter: reporters are now getting ready to head over into the diplomatic reception room here at the white house, where we will hear from president biden. again, they added these remarks very late in the day, just about 15 minutes ago, they want the president would be speaking at 7:45. this will be an opportunity for him to speak more about that special counsel report, which, of course, declined to bring charges against him, but still have all of these damning details that the white house is rebutting about the president's memory and about his mental faculties. we did hear from the president earlier today, speaking about this report, making clear he sat down with the special counsel

voluntarily. what he didn't mention in the remarks earlier were these questions about his memory raised in that report. this could potentially be an opportunity to speak more directly to those concerns, because, of course, they only reinforce some of the concerns that so many voters do have about his potential second term. this will be an important moment for him. i should say the white house has not explicitly said that's what he's doing. in the departmentic reception room, they don't say exactly what he'll be talking about, but this is the backdrop against he will be appearing in a couple minutes from now. >> kevin, thank you. as kevin funds out more, we'll go back to him. the president will be speaking in two or three minutes. we'll see, how long he goes, how

this plays out. john avlon, it is significant you are back, i just said good-bye, and said it will be soon. [ laughter ] but here we are, and 15 minutes warning. obviously this decision did not come out 15 minutes ago. they had much of the day to decide this, so what do you read into this? >> i think the white house and the president realized they needed to get out of in front of this. they need to show the president in commanding tones, speaking crisply, taking questions, and engaging in a radical transparency that the story and innuendo in the report -- i think ty cobb said the spin on the ball in questions about his memory, to that's those directly that people can see, and simply not from press conferences. the best defense is a good offense. >> they did talk about

diminished faculties -- and ty was laying this out, he set he along with special counsel declined to press charges because of issues. but in front of a jury, it would make it different to get a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. that's the context. >> to john's point, all we're talking about is that statement, is about joe biden and his mental abilities. it's good for the president to go out there, and to handle it extra i got on. i would also find a way to just pivot away quickly. don't extend the conversation about this. that's why i'm concerned about tonight. is he going to give us more that we'll be talking about, instead of doing an event in michigan or somewhere -- what a novel idea, do a event somewhere to show voters that not only am i in

fighting trim, as they say, but also talking about the issues. >> john king is joining the conversation now. what do you make with all your decades in the president coming out with a 15-minute warning, that he'll be giving a statement, something so sudden. >> the president will talk here in washington, which i think is a key point. he's going to rebut the criticism he's heard from republicans all day. erin, as you've been designate with your great group, and as kevin pointed out from the white house -- the special counsel said i'm not pressing charges. the bad news, it does talk about the age issues, and how terrible he was in -- and trust me, from my trafls, that's a giant concern of the american people. they didn't need a special counsel report. they're asking questions, is he up to the job. one of the things we hear another road is, where is he?

take the number out of it. don't make it about his age, by but his vitality. it's the most demanding job in the world, many believe. i covered the white house for a ten years. it is a demanding jobe. joe biden's calling card is i'm an adult. i won't do all these things, i know how it works. i'm the expert. i know the rules. this report says they blew through very important rules, so it undermines his credibility of donald trump is chaos, i know how to do it right. he's the incumbent president, trying to say don't bring all that chaos back. so the facts of the report and the judgment about his abilities, it's damning. so the president will start this statement, i would make the case if he really wants to bend the

arc, which is a big question, he's not going to answer that in washington. he's only going to answer that if they see him consistently out to the road. >> that's what you were saying, basil. >> he has to now and throughout the entire campaign demonstrate that he has the mental acutity to be president, which people as john said, don't currently believe. i would say he's probably not happy about this report, probably not happy about the news coverage. if we see angry biden tonight, then this would have been a huge mistake. he needs to go out, acknowledge the report, and i don't know how the pivot out of it tonight, but angry biden and rampaging at this report and this special counsel, that would be a mistake. >> we don't have a rage tweeting problem with joe biden. he needs to come occupy and show vigor.

>> vitality and vigor. >> clarity, he should take questions. i think lean into ultimately his best best argument is his report. the contrast couldn't be clearer with donald trump. this shows sloppiness with classified documents. that's unacceptable. he cooperated, in contrast to donald trump, but no malicious disregard to cooperating with law enforcement. that's a fundamental difference. >> i suppose, you say, we were talking about it earlier. he's glad he's not charged. but sometimes you say, wait a minute, am i really? one of the main reasons is because you look bad on the stand, because you don't remember what you did. >> i get it. if you're donald trump, you're going to turn around saying, i did it, you did it, clear the table, let's start from crash. the finger pointing is over. a lot of what we'll see tonight is joe biden trying to reset

that conversation. if the voters see democrats have to find a way to make it not so. to make donald trump's crimes, potential crime, greater than anything that joe biden did. again, the problem is that this language about his abilities is so baked in to democrats, as we said before, to democrats and independents, let alone republicans, he has to go out and talk about other issues that people care about. >> you've seen him over many years in many roles. you have been walking into a room, you have been him walking in. he's addressing the american people, 7:45, any minute now. there will be reporters in the room. he'll have a live audience. better for him than being in a room with a prompter. he certainly does better with people around him.

they're writing a speech, what do you think is going on here? they do know. when everyone is looking ought to do something specifically wrong, that is sometimes when you make the mistake. you're so focused on not making the mistake. anybody can relate to that. >> so it is a fascinating moment. you're right. one of the constant pushbacks you get from team biden, they have some credibility on this argument, remember, he lost the first three contests in 2020. everybody said goodbye. joe biden shouldn't have run. this is an embarrassing way to go out. he's the president of the united states. you'll here him in a couple minutes. so their team says washington gets this wrong. it is a little different that i believe they're coming to understand. he's the incumbent president so they're trying to make this about donald trump. you can't make it all about donald trump when you're the incumbent president. to the point about vitality, not age. one of the interesting things when you travel and you try to bring up better economic number or inflation is a little bit

better. what about the president's leadership on ukraine? even if you disagree with sending money to ukraine, this president of the united states has done a remarkable job keeping the international coalition together. when you bring that up with people, some of them don't even want to understand the conversation. even maybe people who voted for joe biden because they don't think he's up for the job. so they don't want to talk about his records. they won't even consider it. he walked into the interview room. they decided he was not up for the job so nothing else matters. and i think there is a threshold question, that he must at least bend the opinion of a lot of people to get them to pay attention to the bullet points on his resume. 37 to believe the top line. that he belongs there. >> but john, i will follow with you on this. one of the things that seems to be challenging is, some of the things that people are now putting on him as age are things that may have been exacerbated by age but it is also who he is. he's very open about how he's struggled with a stutter in life. he's someone who often has gone

down verbal cul-de-sacs and meanders into another story. that's his brand for the past 50 years. right now people see those things in a different light. how is he supposed to overcome that when that is actually who he is? >> the way he has overcome it for 40 plus years. to let people see a lot of it. see a lot of it. you realize some of it is baked in, as you said. the stutter, god bless him. the man deserves a lot of credit for fighting through that in a very public way with a camera aimed at him every second of every day. for someone to go through that. it takes a lot of courage. whether you're a crat, independent, or republican. people deal with hardships. i first covered joe biden in iowa in 1987. i was out there covering governor dukakis. he has never been a great communicator. but he is good in small settings and he puts you at ease in a small group with him. he's never been great off a teleprompter and it is clear

he's lost a couple steps. in regard. i think it is to be candid about that. i was listening to a conversation with a doctor the other day. he said just be candid about it. here's where i am. yeah. this is a little heard. look at this, look at this, look at this. appointment out the other things he's doing. in this case, the specifics of this report, we're having a bigger conversation about joe biden and the age issue, is he up to the job and the vitality. on the substance of this, he has to look people in the eye and part of it for the conversation you're having at the table, part of it is admit you were wrong. that's a hard thing for a lot of politicians to do. the american people give a lot of grace. all the perfect people out there raise your hands. and so they give you a lot of grace if you say, i screwed this up or i made mistakes. it is hard for many politicians to do that. i'm interested to see if he does that tonight. >> let's go back the kevin at the white house. they said 7:45. he's often running a little

late. we're ten minutes late off now. what is the latest as you understand it? people say oh, on the other side of this camera looking at that podium. the reporters in that room. >> certainly. and they will be waiting for the president to walk in to deliver his remarks and hopefully, take their questions. but i do think - - it's important. when you talk to white house officials through the course of the day. there's another message that i think they will be trying to get across and that president biden is trying to get across. if you think about it, until 3:00 today when the special counsel report came out, this was essentially a terrible week for republicans, particularly on

capitol hill, sort of demonstrating the inability of the house speaker mike johnson to corral that caucus. the failure to impeach the homeland security secretary. if president biden comes out and says something that is not about the special counsel report, it could be about this attempt to turn the focus back on republicans and back on president trump. if you think about what his imperative will be in the election over the coming nine months, it is to focus more on trump. to remind voters of the chaos that trump has instilled in the country when he was in office. and you are starting to see president biden more and more do that in events at the white house, events at fund-raisers, on the campaign trail, for a person who is loathe to mention trump's name for the better part of his term so far. he is now naming him almost every day and almost every speech. so as the president weigh this is special counsel report, as he

speaks against the back drop of these findings and these quite damning revelations that he says about his memory, i think there's also this desire by the white house and by president biden to turn some of the focus on republicans and as he has this national stage, prime time stage this evening, i wouldn't be surprised if he also brings that into the conversation while he has that moment. >> all right. and kevin, i will say, as everyone files into that room, do you have any sense of something like this which was announced so hastily? it looks like the remarks are being put on the podium. what went on behind the scenes in these past hours to do this and to do it with such little war warning. >> i think there was always today the possibility that president biden would come out and speak in this sort of format. we heard him say earlier in the week that he would take questions. so this has always been lingering.

to today, when there are all these other developments on the hill. there was this imperative among president biden's aides to get him behind a podium and to get him talking about these issues. certainly -- >> kevin? i will interrupt you. the president of the united states, joe biden, is now speaking. >> as you know, the special counsel released its findings today about their look into my handling of classified documents. i was pleased to see he reached a firm conclusion. that no charges should be brought against me in this case. this was an exhaustive investigation going back more than 40 years. even into the 1970s when i was still a new united states senator. the special counsel acknowledged i cooperated completely. i did not throw up any road blocks. i sought no delays.

in fact, i was so determined to get the special counsel what he needed, i went forward with a five-hour in-person, five-hour in-person interview over two days on october 8 and 9 of last year even though israel had just been attacked by hamas on the 7th and i was very occupied. it was in the middle of handling an international crisis. i was especially pleased to see special counsel make clear the stark distinction and difference between this case and mr. trump's case. special counsel wrote, and i quote, several material distinctions between mr. trump's case and mr. biden's are clear. continuing to quote. most notably, after giving multiple chances to return classified documents, to avoid prosecution, mr. trump allegedly did the opposite. according to the indictment, he not only refused to return the documents for many months. he also obstructed justice by enlisting others to destroy evidence and then to lie about it. in contrast, he went o