Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Supreme Court Rules In Favor Of Donald Trump, Allowing Him To Remain On The Ballot Despite Insurrectionist Ban; Landmark Day For Reproductive Rights As Over-The-Counter Birth Control Becomes Available In The U.S.; Air National Guardsman Pleads Guilty To Leaking Classified Military Documents Online; President Biden Prepares For State Of The Union Speech Amid Super Tuesday Primaries; Kamala Harris Takes Forceful Stance Critical Of Israel, Aiming To Shore Up Support Among Democratic Constituencies. Aired 2-2:30p ET

Aired March 04, 2024 - 14:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[14:00:00]

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: Keeping him on the ballot, the Supreme Court ruling in Donald Trump's favor, saying he cannot be banned for his actions on January 6. The court also laid out what it would take for someone to be banned from running and who needs to act to make that happen. That decision set up a huge week in politics, with Donald Trump hoping to knock out his last competitor for the Republican nomination, as Joe Biden sets the stage for his own re-election campaign with what could be the most important speech of his re- election.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: And the landmark day in reproductive rights for women, as birth control ships to stores where it could be available without a prescription for the first time ever in the U.S. We are following these major developing stories and many more, all coming in right here to CNN News Central.

SANCHEZ: One of the unprecedented legal questions looming over the 2024 election has been resolved. Today, the Supreme Court ruling 9-0 that Donald Trump should stay on the Colorado ballot and on the ballot in any state that had disqualified him based on the 14th Amendment's insurrectionist ban. The Supreme Court case concerned Colorado specifically, but Maine's top election official has now formally restored Trump's eligibility in that state as a consequence of this ruling.

As for whether the former president engaged in insurrection, the Supreme Court justices sidestepped that issue. This all amounts to an unequivocal win for former President Trump, and it comes on the eve of Super Tuesday when he's trying to lock down the Republican nomination. Let's bring in CNN chief legal correspondent Paula Reid. Paula, get us up to speed on this historic decision.

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: It's historic indeed. This is the biggest election-related decision from the high court in a quarter century, and it's coming just hours before. Super Tuesday, and here the unanimous court found that Colorado cannot remove former President Trump from its ballot based on the so-called insurrectionist ban. That is Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution that bans insurrectionists from holding office.

Now, the court wrote, quote, because the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the states, responsible for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates, we reverse the Colorado Supreme Court. We conclude that states may disclose, qualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office, but states have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the presidency.

Now, Boris, they wrote how they were concerned that if each state was able to enforce Section 3 on its own, it would create what they described as a patchwork and result in chaos, and they said that is not what the Constitution intended here. Now, it's interesting. Four justices did offer concurring opinions. This was a unanimous. This was a unanimous decision before justices insisted that some of what they said here went a little bit too far, that they would not have required Congress to pass legislation. You see here, you have the three liberal justices. They issued their concurrence. Justice Amy Coney Barrett also issuing her own concurrence, not going quite as far as the liberal justices, not wanting to side with their language, but holding similar in spirit.

SANCHEZ: And notably, her language talked about bringing the political rhetoric down a notch, right? Tell us. Tell us more about that.

[14:05:09]

REID: Yeah, it was so interesting to hear what she had to say, because on the one hand, she said, what matters here is that we are unanimous. And she talked about the time in which this case is arriving at the high court, right? This is a time of heightened political tension. It's a case dealing with Trump. We didn't even hear his name uttered in the oral arguments for good reason. And she talked about how really what the American people need to know is that this was unanimous.

But she also talked about how the court has settled a politically charged issue and that this is a moment where they should turn the national temperature down, not up. That's interesting for us, because this is what the Supreme Court does, right? They take on contentious issues. And there may be a moment, right, where she's in a position where she has to turn the temperature, quote, up, not down. So it'll be interesting to see how that particular quote ages. But she's right about the moment and the larger spirit that she's trying to capture, which is, look, we agreed. on the crux of the decision, even though we would not have gone as far. She's trying to emphasize that this was a bipartisan decision.

SANCHEZ: Yeah, it's fascinating, given the sort of national view, the unpopularity of the Supreme Court right now. Paula Reid, thanks so much for the update. Let's actually go to CNN's Kristen Holmes, because she's tracking the former president's reaction out of Florida. Kristen, Donald Trump today taking a victory lap. Walk us through what he said.

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, Boris, one thing to note here is that he went into this feeling very optimistic. He and his team believe that this ballot, was one of the strongest legal cases that his team had. And so, it's no surprise that he won and that they are doing a victory lap here. He said that he was praising the Supreme Court. He said they worked really hard. And then he said it was a unifying factor. But almost quickly after that, he started talking about Democrats and how this was a Democratic witch hunt and all of his various legal trials.

Of course, as we have reported, they are not linked and they are not at the hands of President Joe Biden, but something he has continued to say. But take a listen to what he said about this ruling.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, REPLUBLICAN PRESIDENTAL CANDIDATE: They worked long, they worked hard. And frankly, they worked very quickly on something that will be spoken about 100 years from now and 200 years from now. The voters can take the person out of the race very quickly. But a court shouldn't be doing that. And the Supreme Court saw that very well. And I really do believe that will be a unifying factor.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HOLMES: Again, that unifying factor part, but the other part of this is that Donald Trump's team feels really good about where his legal cases stand right now. And that's because the Supreme Court did agree to take up that immunity claim to listen to arguments on that. And part of the reason they feel so good about that. Yes, they want to present this presidential immunity claim. But the other part of that is because they want to delay that trial and federal trials as long as possible. And we do know that this is going to do that because they are going to hear this in April, late April. It's likely you wouldn't get a decision until roughly around June delaying that trial even further.

And if you talk to Trump's team, they believe that those trials aren't going to happen at all until after the November election, something that they've been really working towards since all of these indictments came down.

SANCHEZ: Yeah, a lot to watch for in the Trump legal space. Kristen Holmes, thank you so much. Brianna.

KEILAR: All right, let's bring in Anthony Michael Christ, who specializes in the 14th Amendment. He's a constitutional law professor at Georgia State University. And listen, in many ways, this was the expected outcome. But how are you reacting to it?

ANTHONY MICHAEL KREIS, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW PROFESSOR, GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY: Well, I think it's somewhat surprising that the court went as far as it did to not just say that the Colorado decision was wrong, but to say that the only way you can enforce this provision of the 14th Amendment is through express statutory enactments by Congress. So, it's kind of taking a vestigial part of the Constitution and almost reading it out of the Constitution in a way, at least as a practical matter. KEILAR: Is it clear -- you mentioned it would be obviously Congress's role. Is it clear to you how exactly Congress would go about enforcing Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, as the majority opinion says that it should, what that would look like?

KREIS: Yeah, that would get kind of messy, I think. So, the way it worked to some degree in the 1800s, in the aftermath of the Civil War and during Reconstruction, is that there were ways to file warrants with courts in order to get writs and basically have courts throw people out of office who were ineligible in the first place. There were certain other kinds of criminal convictions that would have a disqualification attached to that.

And that might have been or that might be a way that Congress could do it again and use some of those Reconstruction-era laws as models going forward. And also, they technically could pass legislation just to the fact that Donald Trump and certain other named individuals Congress finds engaged in insurrection or rebellion and therefore are ineligible and pass specific legislation to certain people. So, there's a number of different ways that Congress could do that, but the likelihood of that happening is zero.

[14:10:09]

KEILAR: The three liberal justices. And yes, this was a 9-0 decision, to be clear. There were four justices who wrote concurring opinions separately. You had Amy Coney Barrett writing for herself, and then you had judges Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson writing one. Their opinion starts actually with a quote from the Chief Justice John Roberts, pulling this from the Dobbs case that overturned Roe v. Wade, quote, if it is not necessary to decide more to dispose of a case, then it is necessary not to decide more. I wonder what you thought when you were reading their concurring opinion, and that was the first thing in it.

KREIS: Well, I think they're certainly tying this decision into the broader legitimacy issues that the court has faced, particularly in wake of the Dobbs decision. But it's also something that I think is important. At least to understand the perspective of these particular justices, who I think might have wanted a vehicle absent of specific legislation for federal courts to enforce this provision of the 14th Amendment against particular candidates going forward, rather than waiting for Congress to act.

So the thrust of the opinion here is that state actors can't make these federal candidate, basically, decisions, or adjudge the qualifications of individuals for federal office, though they could for state office. But I think these justices may be, or may have wanted some room for the federal courts to be able to enforce this absent express congressional legislation.

KEILAR: Yeah, it was interesting that those four were on the same page with that, but not on the same page with their concurring opinions. And you saw Justice Barrett in her concurring opinion to that point, emphasize the areas of agreement. The court, she writes, has settled a politically charged issue, in the volatile season of a presidential election, particularly in this circumstance. Writings on the court should turn the national temperature down, not up. Did you read that as a bit of a referendum on the other concurring opinion?

KREIS: Well, it seemed to be kind of a shot across the bow, in a way, and a jab to her colleagues on the left. I think what we really need to understand here is that this is perhaps the most important Supreme Court term for America since its construction. Of course, we had this case. We also have the presidential immunity case coming up. There's a number of January 6th cases coming up as well. And so there's a lot on the docket for the Supreme Court in terms of protecting American democracy, establishing norms for the rule of law, and dealing with January 6th defendants and the way federal law has been applied to them.

And so certainly, I think Justice Barrett's position is that given how highly polarizing and salient these issues are, she wants the American public to kind of have trust in the court. But I think certainly, as all things are with the Supreme Court, they're political in nature. And certainly, I don't think that the political unrest and the controversy that's surrounded this case and similar cases will go away anytime soon.

KEILAR: Yeah, certainly not. It was pretty fascinating to read that. Anthony Michael Kreis, thanks for being with us.

KREIS: Thank you.

KEILAR: Boris.

SANCHEZ: So that Supreme Court ruling, as we mentioned, comes on the eve of Super Tuesday, the biggest primary day of this election cycle. Voters in 15 states and American Samoa will cast ballots that could go a long way in shaping the November election ballot. And it could be the last stand for Nikki Haley. So far, she's just won one primary, the D.C. contest that was held this weekend. That's not really enough to get close to Donald Trump, who's on a clear path to the Republican nomination.

Meantime, President Biden spent the weekend at Camp David fine-tuning his State of the Union speech. He's been in the Senate for a few months and here he is, doing his speech that he's set to deliver on Thursday. It's a chance for him to highlight what he's done in office so far and make his pitch to Americans for another term. Let's discuss this now with Kristian Ramos, founder and principal of Autonomy Strategies and a former spokesperson for the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. Also with us, Republican strategist and former senior advisor for Tim Scott's presidential campaign, Matt Gorman.

Matt, as the resident Republican on our panel, your reaction to Donald Trump's victory lap earlier this week? We've talked a lot about how voters might perceive potential legal loss, his convictions. This is a legal victory. How does this work out for him?

MATT GORMAN, FORMER SENIOR ADVISER, TIM SCOTT PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN: A couple of things. I'm not terribly surprised the way it turned out, 9- 0 I think was important. I think when it comes to convictions, I think of late we've seen Trump winning pretty consistently by about two to four points in most national polls head to head against Joe Biden. That tends to flip if it is, if there's a conviction. Now that's a hypothetical. The tough part about it is for somebody who does campaigns, hard to pull hypotheticals.

For example, a week before the Access Hollywood tape in 2016, if you were to poll voters, describe what Trump said on the tape, you'd likely see a very big shift. And obviously, it kind of comes back to normal. So, I think it's hard right now to pull hypotheticals around convictions. But today, a big win for the Trump campaign.

[14:15:09]

KEILAR: Yeah. And, you know, it's -- I wonder what you think about this as you've been observing this.

KRISTIAN RAMOS, FOUNDER AND PRINCIPAL AUTONOMY STRATEGIES: You know what? I think he got off on a technicality, right? They did not exonerate him for attacking the Capitol on January 6th. That's the real problem for this guy politically. This is a candidate who is running for a major political party who led an insurrection at our Capitol that led to the death of police officers. This is something the Supreme Court wouldn't even touch because it's so controversial and radioactive. What do you think that does for moderate voters, for independent voters? This is a very, very badly damaged candidate.

KEILAR: They seem to say it. It's not up to the states to determine that. And I wonder where you think things go from there then?

RAMOS: Well, Congress, I think, is now going to be taking the baton. I heard Jamie Raskin saying that Democrats are going to be looking for ways to work on some legislation that would allow them to take him off the ballot. Look, the bottom line, again, is you don't want a candidate who has been caught up in an insurrection attacking our own Capitol that led to the death of police officers. That's politically toxic anywhere in this country except for those 35, 30 percent MAGA hardcore Republicans.

SACNCHEZ: We mentioned earlier that this decision by the Supreme Court kicks off a huge political week tomorrow, Super Tuesday, later in the week, the State of the Union Address. Tristan, what does President Biden need to do during the State of the Union to get polling moving in his direction because right now it seems like the momentum is with President Trump.

RAMOS: Listen, Joe Biden has been a great president. There's no question in my mind history will look back at the work that he has done. After COVID, getting our economy back online, and see him as one of the most consequential presidents in the history of this country. He has raised jobs, nearly 15 million jobs created. He has created more small businesses than just about any other president. He has raised wages. He has an incredible story to tell. And I know from experience working with Way to Win, Ben Dixon, and Amandi Strategies that when Latino voters and other voters hear about all the things that they do, they move towards the president. When they hear about all the toxic, terrible things that Donald Trump has done, they move away from him. So, I think he's got a great opportunity to tell that story tonight.

KEILAR: Yeah, he's trying to capitalize on gains though Donald Trump is when it comes to Hispanic voters. And something that we were listening to Trump right before we went on air today, and something he said caught my ear, which was, he said, many of these people are tough, he's talking about migrants, many of these people are bad. They come from some of the roughest countries in the world and some of the roughest prisons. And then note the countries that he then pinpoints after that. We have prisons in the Congo in Africa coming. We have people coming from all parts of the Middle East. They're coming from Yemen, and yet we are bombing them he goes on to say.

But I thought that was interesting. That's not normally -- he's normally more diverse in the countries that he's looking at. I wonder what you make of that, if he's trying to stay away from offending Hispanic voters a little bit.

GORMAN: A couple of things. Staying away from offending people, as that's always a funny Trump thing to think about. But yes, a couple things. Hispanic voters and also African-Americans, particularly African-American men, I think Trump campaign, Republicans writ large, see an opportunity to, again, not try necessarily win them, but cut the margins down. And when you do that, states like Arizona, states like Georgia, you tend to cut those margins, make it a lot more competitive. Florida and other areas, you make the margins even higher. Watch for those. I think those are the campaigns you're certainly looking at.

But also, when you look at polling, immigration, not just on the border, tends to resonate with folks. I know when I was with Tim Scott in Iowa and New Hampshire, it certainly did. But a lot across the country, it is becoming very close to the economy in terms of broadly, only becoming the top issue we're seeing.

SANCHEZ: Matt, with Super Tuesday being tomorrow, how does Nikki Haley keep the lights on? How does she keep money flowing in if it doesn't look like she's going to win?

GORMAN: It's wild to me because normally, if you're in Nikki Haley's position, you are doing exactly that. You're trying to scrimp and save to keep the lights on. She can light up a bunch of headquarters, all the money she's bringing in. Now, granted, those folks that are giving to her, not necessarily Republicans, independents, maybe even Democrats. At this point, Nikki is essentially a protest candidate. She's representing folks who are independent, maybe Democrat, maybe some never-Trump Republicans that want to make their voice heard. But right now, as you pointed out in the open, other than D.C., there's no real path for her to get the delegates she needs to actually make this a race.

KEILAR: I wonder, Kristian, Kamala Harris coming out very forcefully, critically of Israel. And this is obviously a problem that we've seen for Biden when it comes to a number of Democratic constituencies. Do you think that she can make the difference? Because the campaign is clearly worried that they're losing some people because of how they've handled the war between Israel and Hamas.

[14:20:09]

RAMOS: Look, what Kamala Harris did yesterday was incredible. I mean, she went out there and she gave a shot in the arm to the campaign. I've seen a lot of very favorable reviews from a lot of folks on the left that said this is an incredible, great start. And I try to start moving towards finding ways to talk about this differently than they have been. They know that they need to shore up the left flank of the party. There's no question about that. And I think they're going to continue to do that. They've got the team in place. And Kamala in particular, a black immigrant woman, they need to put her out there more. She's an incredibly persuasive speaker, and she helps to make the case for Joe Biden.

SANCHEZ: Kristian Ramos, Matt Gorman, appreciate the insight. Thanks so much for us. Appreciate it. So still ahead, the Air National Guardsman accused of leaking hundreds of classified military documents on social media has pleaded guilty. We're following the latest details, including exactly how much time he's going to serve in prison.

KEILAR: Plus, for the very first time, an over-the-counter birth control pill will be available in American stores. We're going to let you know when it hits the shelves and how much it's going to cost. And two basketball legends, two historic milestones, Iowa's Caitlin Clark's, -- Caitlin Clark, pardon me, and the Lakers' LeBron James, both setting scoring records over the weekend that no one is going to break for a very, very long time. All of that coming up on CNN News Central.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:25:19]

SANCHEZ: The Air National Guardsman accused of posting a trove of classified information online just pleaded guilty to all six counts against him. Jack Teixeira was arrested nearly a year ago after prosecutors said that he put top-secret military documents on a social media platform that's popular among gamers. CNN's Jason Carroll joins us now live outside the federal courthouse in Boston. Jason, prosecutors held a press conference just moments ago. What are they saying about this guilty plea?

JASON CARROLL, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, a couple of things. First and foremost, it should be noted that, as you said, Jack Teixeira admitted his guilt in open court, pleading guilty to all six counts of willfully retaining and disseminating national defense information. As part of this plea agreement, he is now no longer looking at spending a maximum of 60 years behind bars. He's now looking at spending up to 200 months behind bars. That roughly translates into about 16 years, plus or minus just a little bit.

Also, as part of this plea agreement, the U.S. attorney agrees to no longer seek any more prosecution against him, any more violations from the Espionage Act or any other additional charges. But also, Boris, here's what's interesting. He also has to sit down for what's called a, quote, satisfactory debrief with members of the intelligence community, the Department of Defense, and in addition to that, the Department of Justice. Clearly, because of these leaks, they want to find out if there's any more information they can learn about how he was able to leak this information, even after he had been warned not to. The government saying that as a result of what has happened here, this now provides some sort of accountability and also some closure to the case.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JODI COHEN, FBI SPECIAL AGENT IN CHARGE, BOSTON: When you think of some of our biggest national security threats we face, China, Russia, and Iran, come to mind. You wouldn't think a 21-year-old National Air Guardsman who took an oath to defend our country and the Constitution would make the list.

MICHAEL BACHRACH, ATTORNEY FOR JACK TEIXIERA: Mr. Teixiera is a 21- year-old. Unfortyunately he is very much (inaudible). He is significantly remorseful for his conduct. He's accepted full responsibility for his conduct, and he will be speaking at the time of sentencing as well.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARROLL: And, you know, Boris, this case obviously raised a number of questions within the intelligence community. Why someone like Teixeira was given a top security clearance to begin with when clearly there were issues in his past, issues that should have been flagged and spotted. His classmates that we spoke to last year said that he oftentimes used racial epithets, talked about wanting to use guns. He had Googled mass shootings like Uvalde and other mass shootings. He was denied a gun permit by local police who had concerns with him.

And so, I put that question to the acting U.S. attorney. I said, you know, why someone like him? Why someone like him had a security clearance to begin with? Why wasn't more done to weed someone like him out? And when I pressed him on that, he simply said, I'm not going to share my personal feelings on something like that. But it was clear how some of them felt there. Also, I should make it known that Teixeira's family, his parents, have weighed in on all of this.

They released a statement. I'm just going to paraphrase it in part. It said, it's hard to believe that a child could be involved in something like this that's so serious. They also blamed what happened on his superiors, saying that it was due to lack of adequate training and oversight. He will be sentenced on September 27th. Boris.

SANCHEZ: Quite a statement there coming from his family. Jason Carroll reporting from Boston. Thank you so much. Ukraine's front lines are right now under siege.