Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
CNN International: U.S. Supreme Court Ruling Keeps Trump On Colorado Ballot; Trump Calls Ballot Ruling A "Big Win for America"; Trump Scores Huge Legal Win, Stays In Colorado Ballot. Aired 11a-12p ET
Aired March 04, 2024 - 11:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[11:00:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ANNOUNCER: This is CNN Breaking News.
RAHEL SOLOMON, HOST, "CNN NEWSROOM": Good morning or good evening, depending on where you're watching. I'm Rahel Solomon live in New York.
We start this morning with breaking news, a historic decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. The court unanimously ruling that Donald Trump's name can remain on Colorado's primary ballot. It is a huge win for the former President. Now, a small group of voters in Colorado brought the case. They claim that Trump disqualified himself for his role leading up to the January 6 Capitol attack. The justices very clearly rejected that argument. Trump hailing the decision on social media, calling it a "big win for America". Now, all of this comes on the eve of the Super Tuesday Republican primaries, and Colorado is one of the 15 states holding this contest tomorrow.
Let's begin this hour with CNN Justice Correspondent Jessica Schneider to just sort of walk us through this ruling. It wasn't necessarily a huge surprise, but remarkable nonetheless.
JESSICA SCHNEIDER, CNN JUSTICE DEPARTMENT: Yeah. We kind of saw this coming from the oral arguments, Rahel. But, the Supreme Court really waited to step in here until the 11th hour to add some certainty to those voters, as you mentioned, in 15 states headed to the polls tomorrow for Super Tuesday. So, the takeaway from this is that Donald Trump will be on the ballot in all states. And if people vote for him, their votes will count.
And the other takeaway is that states cannot unilaterally decide to take presidents or really any federal officers off the ballot. That is a role that Congress would have to take. Congress would have to enact legislation to really decide which candidates could be disqualified by the 14th Amendment's so-called insurrection ban. That's the clause in Section 3 that says any officer of the United States who engages in insurrection can be barred from holding office. And we've seen this litigation go through the states. We've seen in particular, Colorado, Maine, Illinois, they've all acted via their state courts to rule that Trump should be taken off the ballot because of that clause. But, now the Supreme Court is stepping in today to say that, no, a state cannot decide who is on or off the ballot in federal elections.
Now, we're seeing a number of officials and notable people weigh in on this. Donald Trump already weighing in, saying "big win for America". We understand that he'll speak in front of the cameras at Mar-a-Lago at some point soon. On the other side, the Colorado Secretary of State, Jena Griswold, she is really speaking out with disdain on social media, saying she is disappointed, and she is continuing to argue there. She is saying Colorado should be able to bar oath- breaking insurrectionists from our ballot. So, this unanimous decision from the Supreme Court, it does hand a win to Donald Trump, saying that he should stay on the ballot, but drawing all kinds of reaction.
The takeaway, though, is that Trump will be on all primary ballots moving forward. And crucially, there is no question that if he is the Republican nominee that he will be on the general election ballot. That was something that maybe wasn't questioned before this ruling from the Supreme Court.
So, Rahel, the justices really deciding this as a narrow issue keeping Trump on the ballot, but really not addressing what the courts in Colorado had ruled. They had ruled that Trump engaged in insurrection. And we didn't see that addressed at oral arguments in front of the Supreme Court. So, the justices really steering clear of that, and merely saying here that Trump should remain on the ballot and he will remain on the ballot, and that essentially it's just not up to states to decide who when it comes to federal elections should be on the ballot. Rahel.
SOLOMON: Yeah, sort of sidestepping the thorniest issue perhaps of all is, of course, whether he committed insurrection. Jessica, let me ask one to be clear, this was a unanimous decision, right, meaning both the liberals on the court and the conservatives on the court agreed to this ruling. But, there was --
SCHNEIDER: Yes.
SOLOMON: -- some dissent in terms of how far this could be applied. Talk about that to me.
SCHNEIDER: Yeah. So, they all agreed that, baseline, all nine of them agreed that Trump should remain on the ballot in Colorado. So, that was what they all agreed to. However, there was some question and some disagreement as to how far they should take this ruling. As I mentioned, the five members of the court, so a majority of the court, said that states can't decide if President should remain on the ballot. They can't decide whether any federal officer can remain on the ballot. They have no power as to all federal officers. Four of the justices said we don't want to go that far. And there was also some question as to whether courts could even enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
[11:05:00]
Five of the justices, again, a majority, saying that, no, this isn't court's role. Congress needs to step in with legislation. And again, the four justices, they concurred in the overall takeaway from this case, but differed, saying that the court shouldn't have gone so far to decide those other issues. So, all nine of them agreeing Trump should remain on the ballot, but the five and the majority dictating the particulars as to how to apply, in the future perhaps, Section 3 of the 14th amendment.
SOLOMON: Yeah. And what's so interesting I think about this is that they did not rule from the bench. So, this was sort of applied to the docket and their words stand for all of us who interpret --
SCHNEIDER: Yeah.
SOLOMON: -- because they are not there.
SCHNEIDER: Rahel, I'm actually really glad that you mentioned that, because we've been waiting, let's say, oral arguments in this were February 8. So, we've been waiting almost a month for this decision. Super Tuesday is tomorrow. So, when all of us who cover the Supreme Court hadn't heard anything on Friday, we were a bit baffled, because we thought for sure the Supreme Court would know the political implications of this and want to weigh in on this question before voters in Colorado go to the polls tomorrow. Of course, a lot of them have been voting by mail, early voting already.
But, yes, as you mentioned, this was sort of a scramble. They announced yesterday that there would be opinions released today. And they didn't actually take the bench like they always do when they issue opinions. They did not -- they were not at the court today. They come back to the courthouse next week on March 15. So, yeah, a little bit maybe of a frenzied release because they knew the political implications here with Super Tuesday coming up tomorrow.
SOLOMON: Yeah. They are massive the implications. Jessica Schneider, so good to have you today. Thank you.
SCHNEIDER: Thanks.
SOLOMON: Let's continue the conversation and welcome in our panel. Molly Ball is Senior Political Correspondent at The Wall Street Journal. CNN Political Analyst Seung Min Kim. She is also White House Reporter for the Associated Press, and former Federal Prosecutor Michael Zeldin. Welcome to you one. Welcome to you all.
Michael, let me start with you. Is this the right opinion? I mean, was this a surprise? I mean, what's your takeaway here?
MICHAEL ZELDIN, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Well, it wasn't a surprise after we heard oral argument. And I also think it was a right decision from a historical standpoint, which was this -- Section 3 of the 14th amendment was specifically designed to prevent insurrectionists, confederate officers who had fled the union to fight against it in a Civil War from regaining their offices. And so, the notion of these insurrectionists, states can then put these legislators back in the Federal Congress made no sense. And so, I think that historical analysis is correct.
One sort nitpicky issue on this is, should they have just stopped at that point and said, Colorado, you cannot do this, end of the case, or as they did say, which was, Section 5 of the 14th Amendment is the only mechanism by which Section 3 can be enforced, and now we need federal legislation under Section 5 to do that. I'm not sure they needed to go there. But, it's really less important. It's more sort of in the weeds legally. And right now, what we have is a nine-nothing decision that says Trump can appear on the ballot and let the voters decide.
I just want to add one thing, Rahel, which, Rahel, is this, which is this case is important in and of itself. But, it becomes more important when read in tandem with the immunity case. If in the immunity case the decision is that Trump is not immune, then you get this one-two of, yes, he can appear on the ballot but he has to be held accountable in a court of law first. If they say he is immune from prosecution and he can appear on the ballot, that makes it a much more political looking outcome, and I'll turn it over to Molly again to tell me if I'm wrong or right on that politics.
SOLOMON: Yeah. Unless I remember oral arguments for the presidential immunity case that are set for April. So, we'll learn more about that in the weeks and months to come.
Molly, let me ask, I mean, how much of a political win is this for the former President? Because this does not only apply to Colorado. It's pretty clear in the ruling that this applies to any state that would try to use this amendment in this way.
MOLLY BALL, SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL: Well, I think as Michael said, this is broadly what we were expecting from the court after the way that -- the skepticism of the justices expressed during arguments and also as a political matter. There was a feeling that the court did not want to be put in this decision that at a time when so many have so many concerns about the strength of our democracy, that it would appear anti-democratic to take the leading candidate for the Republican presidential nomination and have a court say that he could not appear on the ballot.
[11:10:00]
So, from the beginning, I think most observers expected that the court was going to try to find some way to take itself out of this whole matter and to not be put in the position of making that decision just because of the potential consequences and for how it would look to have the court intervening in such a weighty matter. I think also based on what we've seen from Trump in the past, the way he has reacted to things like the Mueller report, we can expect him to mischaracterize this decision and claim that it exonerates him in some way. Of course, it does not the justices rather pointedly did not weigh in on the conduct in question. But, what we have seen in the past is that Trump tends to take any kind of decision like this and claim that it vindicates him, and I'm sure that he'll do that with this as well.
SOLOMON: Well, Seung Min, speak to me about -- I mean, there is a group certainly of Americans who will hear this ruling and think, here you go again. I mean, you have the Supreme Court, which certainly a group of Americans believe has become more partisan over the years. So, talk to me about sort of the politics of that, but there is certainly a group that will hear this ruling and think, I mean, here is the Supreme Court again ruling in a way that seems to lean conservative.
SEUNG MIN KIM, WHITE HOUSE REPORTER, ASSOCIATED PRESS, & CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Right. But, then it's also important to remember that this was a unanimous decision, and that this -- the small issue that the court ruled on is that it is not up to states to decide whether this 14th Amendment applies to whether you can kick someone off a ballot. That really is up to Congress, and that, again, was a unanimous decision.
And I think it's important to remember too that while Molly talks about how obviously and clearly this is a win for Trump, he can stay on all of the ballots across the country, this is something -- if you talk to Democrats, if you talk to Biden campaign officials, Biden allies and many Democrats, if not most Democrats, they actually did not want the outcome of Trump getting kicked off the ballot. They feel like this is -- they want to win on the merits. They want to win on the contrast of what Biden would do in a second term and what Trump would do in a second term.
You try to ask Biden official about this -- Biden officials about this for the last couple of months. They did not want to talk about it. President Biden did weigh in on it once. He said, I believe he engaged in insurrection. But, he said this is up to the courts, and he really didn't engage on it further. So, you do see that a broad base of the Democratic Party as opposing of Trump, as they are, this is probably the outcome that they wanted. For all the reasons that Molly said that this is a democracy issue and it's hard to kick the leading Republican contender off the ballot in key states.
SOLOMON: Michael, what do you make of the timing of this? Oral arguments were less than a month ago. Super Tuesday is less than 24 hours from now. I mean, you had the Colorado Secretary of State saying that she was expecting a decision two weeks ago. Was it the right decision to announce this 24 hours before voters in 15 states go to the primaries?
ZELDIN: It's a great question. In Bush v. Gore, they got a decision in three days. In Nixon, they got a decision in 16 days. And here we have a month-long decision, as you say, on the eve of this primary. Part of me says you had to get this decision out before the primary, and part of me says, really but on the eve of the primary, doesn't that sort of give Trump a political win that makes this opinion look like it was politically motivated? So, I would have liked to have seen this a week or two ago. But, clearly, there was dissent among the nine justices. They wanted a unanimous decision, but they really got a five-four decision on the fundamental question of whether or not it is exclusive to Congress to act in a specific way to keep up insurrectionists accused former President off the ballot?
And so, they took the time that they needed to get to unanimity, and they leave it to the dissents to make it five-four. So, I think they did the best they could, given their fractured decision result which they would not have wanted. He would not have wanted this to be a five-four case.
SOLOMON: Fascinating. We'll leave it here for now. Michael Zeldin, Molly Ball, Seung Min Kim, thank you all.
All right. And stay with us. We're going to have much more on this. Donald Trump winning his Supreme Court battle to stay on the ballot in Colorado. We will be right back.
[11:15:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SOLOMON: Welcome back. And back now to our top story. The U.S. Supreme Court ruling that former President Donald Trump is eligible to appear on Colorado's ballot. The ruling reverses the decision of the state Supreme Court which deemed him ineligible under the insurrectionist ban and the Constitution's 14th Amendment. The unanimous ruling is a major victory for Trump as he campaigns to regain the presidency this fall. And he is already calling this "a big win for America". And we expect to hear from the former President soon. We will, of course, bring those remarks to you from his Mar-a-Lago home just as soon as they happen.
But, for now, let's go to CNN's Alayna Treene in Washington. So, Alayna, as we said, Trump already calling this a big win. What else are we hearing from the Trump campaign?
ALAYNA TREENE, CNN REPORTER: Well, as you just said, with him saying this is a big win, that's how the entire campaign feels about this. They are very happy with this decision. And you can expect the former President to take a victory lap when he delivers those remarks at Mar- a-Lago. He'll be celebrating this decision. And I can tell you, Rahel, from my conversations with Trump's team, they're not just happy about this specific Supreme Court decision, which again is a win for them. But, they are generally feeling better about some of Donald Trump's legal problems.
You saw last week the Supreme Court deciding or saying that they would listen to and take up the case regarding presidential immunity. Of course, it's very unclear how they would ultimately decide on that. But, the fact that the Supreme Court is going to hear that case at all is something that they are also very happy about. So, this comes at a time when they're hoping to be delaying a lot of Donald Trump's trials. They think that this Supreme Court decision and others will help further delay some of those until, if they get their wish, until after the election. So, we'll see.
And I can also tell you that less than an hour after this decision came down from the court, they had issued a fundraising appeal to supporters who are already trying to raise money off of this, and I'll just read you a quick quote from that appeal. They said "they were criticizing this as the unhinged Democratic plan to erase my name."
And the other thing they mentioned in that fundraising appeal, Rahel, is that this is the day before Super Tuesday. That's part of why and you've heard this from our legal experts, why the Supreme Court wanted to have this decision and this opinion come down before many voters go to the polls tomorrow. But, they think this boosts him going into that election and the series of elections across the country. And so, they're very happy about this.
SOLOMON: Yeah. We certainly will wait to hear exactly how it's all framed when we hear from the former President in Mar-a-Lago. Alayna Treene live for us there. Alayna, thank you.
And millions of voters in the U.S. preparing to cast their ballots in the Super Tuesday primaries. There are 15 presidential nominating contests tomorrow for Republicans and 16 for Democrats. The Super Tuesday states are spread across the country from California in the West to Alabama and the south and Vermont in the Northeast, And Texas is also one of those states voting in Super Tuesday, and that's where we find CNN's Kylie Atwood who joins us today. She joins us from Fort Worth. And Kylie, I believe you're traveling with Nikki Haley campaign. Certainly, correct me if I'm wrong. Talk to us a bit about what we can expect.
KYLIE ATWOOD, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yeah. That's right. Nikki Haley is going to be here in Texas today. She is headed to Houston and then she is coming here to Fort Worth. And this will be her final event ahead of Super Tuesday. As you said, it is a major day for the campaign and could really dictate where Nikki Haley's campaign goes from here. She herself has said she is focused solely on Super Tuesday and what happens there. She hasn't talked about any travel beyond Super Tuesday yet. And there will be more than a third of the total delegates that are part of the Republican nominating process that are awarded tomorrow with more than a dozen states that are going to be voting.
What we expect to hear from Nikki Haley today is more of the same. She hasn't really changed up her pitch to voters all that much over the course of the last few months.
[11:20:00]
She has reminded them that she believes that she is best poised to take on President Biden in a general election. She has called for the need for Americans to have an option to vote for someone who won't be in their 80s as President, casting herself as the next generational leader that Americans need. But, I also think it's important as we look at what could be the future of Nikki Haley, potentially after Donald Trump clenches enough delegates to win the nomination. What she is actually going to do with her voice? She has previously said that she would pledge to support the eventual nominee for -- on the Republican side.
But, over the weekend, she made some comments, indicating that she doesn't believe that she is beholden to that pledge any more, saying she is going to make the decision she wants to make because she said that the RNC, the Republican National Committee, is a different RNC than it was when she initially made that pledge last year.
SOLOMON: All right. Kylie Atwood live for us in Texas there. Kylie, thank you. And Colorado is also one of those states voting tomorrow, and anyone
there casting a ballot for Donald Trump now knows that their vote will count. That's after to the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the state Supreme Court ruling banning Trump from the ballot. That decision by the nine justices was unanimous.
For more on this, let me bring in CNN Legal Analyst Elliot Williams. Elliot, what are your thoughts about this ruling? Was this the right decision legally?
ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST, & FORMAL FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: I think it was a defensible position -- opinion legally, partly because it was clear that this was how the court was going to rule from the beginning. There was striking unanimity around the justices' questions at the hearing on this sometime ago. So, it was really just a question of how far they went. Now, what you see is some divisions among the justices as to actually how far they should have gone. And you had four justices that didn't quite agree with the reasoning of the opinion and the reach of it, but certainly agreeing with the underlying question that states should not be the ones to decide whether a candidate for federal elections should be on a ballot.
SOLOMON: Yeah. And to that point, I want to read for you something from Justice Barrett. She says "The Court has settled a politically charged issue in the volatile season of a Presidential election." And I think we can pull this up for you at home. "Particularly in this circumstance, writings on the Court to turn the national temperature down, not up. For present purposes, our differences are far less important than our unanimity. All nine Justices agree on the outcome of this case. That is the message Americans should take home."
So, Elliot, just for purposes of national applications, I mean, it sounds pretty clear from this ruling that this applies in Colorado but the other states as well.
WILLIAMS: It does apply in Colorado and the other states as well. And that wording there was very much a, can't we all just get along, coming from Amy Coney Barrett to the other justices, particularly, Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson, given sort of the way they approached the case, I think. I mean, again, we weren't in the room there. But, no, this is nationwide and sweep. Now, they could -- the court could have just issued a ruling only pertaining to Colorado and the specific actions of the Colorado legislature or Colorado courts. They have chosen to sort of open the door and make it a broader opinion. That was probably the right decision for some of the reasons that you talked about a little bit earlier in the program.
There would have been ambiguity across the country as to who ought to be on the ballot, and that going into Super Tuesday would have been, setting aside who anyone's preferred choice of candidate is, a level of confusion that could upend an election.
SOLOMON: And I also want to bring in Tim Heaphy, who is also a former federal prosecutor. Tim, let me ask your perspective on this, and if I could get you to weigh in on the timing of this decision. I mean, the oral arguments were less than a month ago. The decision, of course, coming less than 24 hours before Super Tuesday. What do you make of that?
TIM HEAPHY, FORMER LEAD INVESTIGATOR, JANUARY 6TH COMMITTEE, & FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Yeah. It shows that the court is mindful of the political calendar which bodes well, frankly, for the immunity case. If there is a strong incentive to resolve that case, early enough, ideally before the fall election, it shows that they pay attention to why at times it is necessary for them to go fast. The broader substance of the opinion is not a surprise. As everyone has been saying, this was expected from the oral arguments. It's a ruling on a question of law, not a question of fact. They don't touch the Colorado court's finding that the President engaged in insurrection. They don't reach that because they found Congress has to be the one to invoke Section 3. So, it's a legal decision, not a factual one. That's my main takeaway.
SOLOMON: But, Tim, what do you make of those who wonder -- but, why issue this ruling so soon, close -- so close to Super Tuesday?
[11:25:00]
I take your point that it is -- they wanted to get the decision out before Super Tuesday. But, why so closes to Super Tuesday?
HEAPHY: Because it took a while. Right? There is two concurrences. The court does not move in lockstep. There are nine people that have strong views, particularly on matters of this significance. My guess is they wanted to get it out before Super Tuesday, but it just took time for them to consolidate their views and issue these three opinions, the majority opinion and the two others. But again, it was just before people in Colorado physically go to the polls. Some have voted early. But, tomorrow is the primary, and they didn't meet that deadline.
SOLOMON: Elliot, let me ask, in the universe of things before the Supreme Court, this is just one of at least two cases that was before the Supreme Court, the other one being the presidential immunity case, which also has pretty huge implications, and not just politically, but also legally for the former President.
WILLIAMS: Absolutely. Now, the question of, are they weighing the cases in concert and ruling one way in one case so they have the flexibility to ruin another? I think it's sort of nonsense. It's an entirely different issue, the immunity question. But, to Tim's point, the court appears to be mindful of not just the calendar and sort of the particularities of it, but also voters' needs. Our entire electoral systems need to not have confusion or ambiguity going into a major election. And it does bode well for -- this timing does bode well for the immunity case being resolved at some point, on a pretty short timeline to give voters a chance, and frankly, to get the whole system a chance to accommodate it.
SOLOMON: And, Tim, I'm wondering if we could take a sort of bird's eye view of just this period, if there was any other period, even 2000 where the Supreme Court has had in their hands a case of such national significance in terms of a presidential election. HEAPHY: Yeah. Hard to imagine that the court has had issues of this significance. But, let's remember the reason we're here is because the facts are so unprecedented. Right? An insurrection, a violent attack on the United States Capitol hasn't happened before. And that is why we're here. It isn't the Supreme Court choosing this. These are things that have landed on their desks. So, what's really unprecedented here is the core conduct that's at stake.
SOLOMON: Yeah. Tim Heaphy, Elliot Williams, good to see you both. Thank you for the perspective.
WILLIAMS: Thanks.
SOLOMON: All right. Still to come for us, the UN General Assembly is discussing the war in Gaza this hour amid urgent new efforts to broker a hostage deal and ceasefire. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[11:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SOLOMON: Welcome back. You're watching CNN Newsroom. I'm Rahel Solomon live in New York.
More now on our breaking news, the U.S. Supreme Court ruling unanimously that Donald Trump should remain on Colorado's primary ballot. The decision is a major victory for the former President and it'll likely bring an end to similar challenges in other states. Trump calling the ruling a "big win for America" on social media. It comes one day before the Colorado Republican primary, which is part of Super Tuesday.
Let me bring back in Molly Ball and Seung Min Kim, both with us, as well as Lance Trover. He was the spokesperson for North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum's 2024 presidential campaign. Welcome to you all again.
Lance, let me start with you. Give us a sense of how you think this ruling will be interpreted by voters in North Dakota which -- our Republican voters are going to caucus tonight.
LANCE TROVER, FORMER SPOKESPERSON, DOUG BURGUM'S PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN: Well, I think it's a big victory nationwide for the former President. Right? And what people are going to see when they go home tonight is a unanimous Supreme Court ruling. They're not going to get into the nuances of whether there was dissents or not. And when things like this happen, it all serves to underscore the narrative that the former President is pushing out there, that there is an establishment that's out to get him. And when things like this happen, he is the only person there to take on the establishment. So, I think it's a big win for him, not just in North Dakota, but throughout the country.
SOLOMON: And Molly, let me get to you just in terms of the politics of this moment. We're going to hear from the former President at Mar-a- Lago shortly today. And as Lance said, Americans may not get into the minutiae of the ruling about whether he committed insurrection. The headline will be what the headline is, which is that he should remain on the ballot.
BALL: Now, I think that's absolutely right, and I think we're likely to hear the former President describe it in those terms call it a win for democracy, say that this is returning the decision to the voters where it belongs. And the court clearly, unanimously, took that view, with all of the justices saying that they thought that this decision should be in the hands of the people and that states do not have the right to make these decisions.
We heard during the oral arguments a lot of concern among the justices about what might happen if they did sort of open the floodgates to states making different decisions. You could see red states kicking Democrats off the ballot, blue states finding different reasons to kick other Republicans off the ballot. And so, the court really saw its role here, I think, is returning order to the process and giving Americans the certainty of a unanimous decision, saying this will be an election in which the voters make that decision.
SOLOMON: And Seung Min, saying on the politics of this moment, thus far Trump's base has been pretty locked in. And I'm wondering if you think a ruling like this does anything to appeal to the more moderate voters, more swing voters. I mean, Colorado once was a purple state. I don't know if it's now a blue state. But, I mean, does this do anything to appeal to voters who may have been on the sidelines?
KIM: I mean, I would imagine that if you're are that moderate swing voter, you're probably liking this decision, you'll probably agree that it isn't the role of the courts and the role of state elections officials to kick, again, someone who is the leading Republican presidential contender off the ballot. But, I also do think what this does, especially because the court did not delve into the issue of whether President -- former President Trump delved into or participated in an insurrection or not. It just does have a reminder for voters that he is facing a lot of legal jeopardy coming up over the next several months, not all of them have to do with the January 6, 2021 attack at the Capitol, but one does.
There are so many trial dates and hearings and other court dates coming up starting on March 25 with that hush money case up in New York, and it is a reminder to those moderate swing voters that he has all these legal liabilities that could resolve itself by November but could certainly may not.
SOLOMON: And then, Lance, I'm wondering certainly from your time with Doug Burgum, but also just in general, I mean, when you're speaking to voters there in North Dakota, for example, how concerning if at all are these legal issues facing the former President? Are you hearing more about his economic policies? I mean, what do you hear when you're talking to voters?
TROVER: Well, being on the road with Doug, both in New Hampshire and Iowa and everywhere in between, I can tell you, it rarely came up. But, I'd also point to The New York Times poll from this weekend which said 53 percent of people in that poll thought that Donald Trump had committed a crime, but they also went on to note that many of those people are still saying they're going to vote for him this November. And that, I think, is a very telling number.
SOLOMON: Yeah. And Molly, talk to me about that. I mean, how do you explain -- once upon a time, it seemed like Haley in a matchup with Biden seem to be doing better.
[11:35:00]
But, as of late, you're actually starting to see Trump start to gain some steam a bit. What can you sort of speak to that might explain what's happening?
BALL: Well, Trump has been leading Biden in most polls for a while now, although Haley in most of those polls has a bigger margin in that hypothetical head-to-head. But, I think, to Lance's point, we see a lot of voters have already sort of internalized the legal cases that Trump is facing, and he has got this sort of heads I win, tails you lose argument, where if he loses a motion or a case or has a prosecution, he can say, well, this is because there is a witch hunt and an establishment conspiracy against me. And then when he when something, like this decision from the Supreme Court, he can say, well, I've been vindicated, and this proves that this is all a witch hunt and a hoax and an establishment conspiracy against me.
So, having created this argument, which I think plays better with his base of Republican voters than it does with swing voters in the broader electorate, but he has insulated himself from the political fallout from a lot of this stuff, because he has convinced his base so resoundingly that none of these cases have any merit.
SOLOMON: Seung Min, one of the asterisk we sometimes see in polling is that if he were convicted, some voters might not be able to sort of vote for him then. But, what we see is delays. Right?
MIN: Right.
SOLOMON: I mean, even last week with the Supreme Court saying that they're going to look into this presidential immunity case, essentially putting that back a few weeks. I mean, voters may not have that information before November, because at least with a few of these cases, they may not go to trial before November.
KIM: Right. Right. That's why the Trump legal strategy, ever since they began, has been delay, delay, delay. They're finding ways to -- they're filing motions or asking that they won't have enough time to prepare for a trial. And certainly, there is a very good chance that a lot of these cases may not be resolved before November. We're looking at serious issues with the prosecution in Georgia, which is probably the most sprawling and complicated of the four legal cases against the former President.
But, that -- again, which is why that has been the whole Trump legal team's tactic from the start. And I think that so far, it's been working. You have the Supreme Court deciding to take up the immunity case in the week of April 22. That, of course, delayed the cases for Jack Smith much further along than what the prosecution wanted. And just -- these cases, just by definition, are complicated. They will take weeks, if not a couple of months to hear, if you account for the jury and jury deliberations. It's just a very long process in a very heated time in American politics.
SOLOMON: Lance, I'm wondering if you were advising Trump, who is about to speak at Mar-a-Lago, what would you tell him to lean into? I'm curious this was obviously a unanimous decision. What would be your advice to him in terms of the messaging after this ruling?
TROVER: Well, I don't think the President Trump needs my advice. I think what he is going to say is not only was this a victory for America, it's a victory for their -- the movement and the establishment that's been working against him, and that he is the only person to come in and take a sledgehammer to that establishment, and that there have been a court system that's out to get him, and I think he is going to come out and say and speak to not just Republican voters, but a broad swath of voters out there who, as you've seen from that New York Times poll, are listening at this point, and are very open to hearing him talk about that, and how he is probably the only outsider who can come in and break up this establishment. My guess is that's what he is going to come in and say today.
SOLOMON: And Lance, let me sit with you for just a moment more. Let me cross the aisle. But, let's say you were advising the President who obviously is going to be speaking to a huge audience on Thursday, per State of the Union. It is not a campaign speech, but certainly a lot of people will be watching. What might you advise him to say after this ruling?
TROVER: Again, I'm not here to advice Joe Biden on anything. Look, if you look at that New York Times poll from over the weekend, it's clear. He has a big, big problem with broad swaths of the country. Only 25 percent of the country believes it's on the right trajectory. So, he is going to have to be very clear and concise about what he has done and what he sees the future being, because right now, voters just aren't buying what he has done in the last three years. It's a heavy lift for him, for sure.
SOLOMON: All right. We will leave it here. Lance Trover, Molly Ball, Seung Min Kim, good to have you all. Thank you.
All right. And minutes ago, we got word of a guilty plea from a former Trump Organization executive, the company's former Chief Financial Officer pleaded guilty to perjury charges. Allen Weisselberg is a former longtime confidant of Trump. The charges relate to his testimony in a civil investigation into the real estate company's finances. Weisselberg had already been found liable for fraud.
CNN's Kara Scannell joins us live from New York with the details. What's the latest here, Kara?
KARA SCANNELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, Rahel. Just a short time ago, Allen Weisselberg was here at the courthouse behind me, and he pleaded guilty to two counts of perjury. [11:40:00]
Those are felony charges and they relate to testimony he gave to the New York Attorney General's office in 2020 during their civil investigation of the Trump Organization, Donald Trump and Weisselberg himself. Now, according to prosecutors and Allen Weisselberg's guilty plea today, he admitted that he lied during a deposition taken in 2020 when he was asked two specific questions, one of them he was asked if he had ever informed any financial institution that Donald Trump's triplex apartment at Trump Tower was wrong on the financial statement. And Weisselberg had said that, no, he only learned that it was wrong after the financial statements went out.
Now, during the trial, testimony came out that Weisselberg was informed that the value of this triplex apartment, which was inflated to be a size of 30,000 square feet, when in reality it was just under 11,000 square feet. He knew about that before the financial statement went to the bank. So, that was one of the counts that he pled guilty to today.
The other also relates to the size of that triplex apartment. And he was asked, were you ever present when Donald Trump described the size of the triplex apartment? He said, no. But, prosecutors say he was present when Donald Trump had a meeting with Forbes magazine who was conducting its survey of the richest people. And in that interview, which was recorded on audio, that Weisselberg was present. So, those are the two counts. But, he also admitted that he lied on the sand when he testified last fall at the civil fraud trial, also related to the size of this apartment, but he was not pleading guilty to that in this case, though, he did admit wrongdoing.
So, he will be sentenced next month. Prosecutors say that they have agreed that he would serve five months in jail. He has already pled guilty to tax fraud charges and served 100 days at Rikers Island. That's the jail in New York. He is likely to serve about the same term then. So, he will be sentenced next month. He is, though, important to note, not cooperating against the former President Donald Trump. Prosecutors for years have been pressuring Weisselberg to turn against Trump. Weisselberg had worked with him for decades and wanting his cooperation, but Weisselberg will not be cooperating in this case. He was centered to the allegations involving the hush money payments, the first criminal trial that Donald Trump will face later this month.
Weisselberg was involved in structuring the payments and also reimbursing Trump's former Attorney Michael Cohen. But, Weisselberg will not be providing testimony in that case. He is not going to be called by prosecutors or by Trump's attorneys. So, this is just what's known as the straight plea deal in which he will resolve his own allegations and admitted perjury in this investigation, but he will not be cooperating with the prosecutors against the former President. Now, one of the assistant district attorneys today, Gary Fishman, saying in court that they were bringing this case because perjury tears at the very fabric of our justice system as they were looking to hold him accountable for that. Rahel.
SOLOMON: All right. Kara Scannell, thank you for the update, live for us from New York. Kara, thanks.
And we'll be right back with more.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[11:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SOLOMON: UN human rights chief says that the war on Gaza is a "powder keg" that could spiral into a regional conflict. The warning comes as the UN General Assembly meets today to discuss the humanitarian crisis in Gaza amid growing calls for a ceasefire. International mediators are racing to try to broker a hostage deal and truce ahead of Ramadan to head off a threatened Israeli assault on Rafah. And while there is a ground invasion there yet, Israel is keeping up deadly attacks from the air. It also did not send a delegation to Cairo for the latest round of ceasefire talks, saying that Hamas did not meet two key demands.
Let's bring in Jeremy Diamond in Tel Aviv for more details. Jeremy, good to see you. Negotiations still underway. Where do we stand right now?
JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, certainly over the last week and a half, Rahel, we've seen a lot of progress being made in these negotiations, but yesterday, Israel deciding not to send a delegation to the latest round of talks in Cairo. An Israeli official telling us that the Israeli Prime Minister decided not to send a delegation because Hamas so far has refused to provide a list of the Israeli hostages who would be released under that initial six-week pause in the fighting. The Israeli government is also waiting for Israel to provide more details on the number of Palestinian prisoners that they would demand be released as part of these talks.
Now, a senior Hamas official also spoke with us and offered a different view of what the kind of sticking points are, key standing in the way of progress at this moment. And they are still pushing for Israel to agree, if not to a permanent ceasefire, then at least to a path to a permanent ceasefire as part of these negotiations, and also for the withdrawal of Israeli troops from the Gaza Strip.
But today, we also have Israeli Minister of Benny Gantz, a key member of Israel's war cabinet, in Washington, D.C., meeting with top White House officials as well as Vice President Kamala Harris, who yesterday issued perhaps the administration's most forceful call yet for a temporary ceasefire as part of these negotiations. So, that will be a key meeting to see whether or not more pressure can be brought to bear on the Israeli government to move towards an agreement here. But certainly, this is a live ball, and we know that the clock is ticking down. We are less than a week away until the holy Muslim holiday of Ramadan, which Gantz himself had said would be the deadline for a deal to be reached. If not, Israeli officials have vowed to move ahead with this major military offensive in Rafah.
Now, as all of this is happening, Israel is continuing to carry out multiple strikes in the Gaza Strip. And we're also getting a clearer picture of the dire humanitarian situation in Gaza. The Palestinian Ministry of Health now saying that 15 children have died of malnutrition and dehydration as a result of the dire humanitarian conditions there, and there are fears that six more children at a hospital in northern Gaza could also meet the same fate.
And so, we're seeing countries like the United States stepping up their efforts to provide aid with these airdrops. Those, however, are inefficient. They are quite costly. And it's really a sign of the desperation, a sign that Israel is not able to get enough humanitarian aid in. Unwilling or unable is one of the key questions here. And also, it is a key sign that the U.S. so far has failed to pressure Israel to allow enough aid to enter the Gaza Strip. And certainly, it's an indication of how desperate the humanitarian situation is currently in Gaza. Rahel.
SOLOMON: Yeah. It certainly gives you a sense of just the scope and significance of the conversations happening later today between the Vice President and Benny Gantz. Jeremy Diamond live for us in Tel Aviv. Jeremy, thank you.
And coming up after a short break, we're going to have much more on the enormous legal win for Donald Trump. What will today's Supreme Court ruling mean for the November election? We'll discuss.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[11:50:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SOLOMON: Welcome back. A major ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court and a massive victory for Donald Trump. Justices voted nine to nothing to keep the former President's name on Colorado's primary ballot. Now, the court, though, did not take up whether Trump acted as an insurrectionist in the events leading up to January 6. The decision clears up at least one legal hurdle for him as he tries to recapture the White House in November. Trump is expected to give remarks at Mar- a-Lago in just a few minutes. And of course, we will bring that to you just as soon as they happen.
But, for now, let's bring in CNN Politics Senior Reporter Stephen Collinson. Stephen, I thought it was interesting, your piece this morning talked about the defining week for U.S. politics, and already that definition this morning starting to take shape.
STEPHEN COLLINSON, CNN POLITICS SENIOR REPORTER: That's right. We have this massive Supreme Court decision which we've been waiting for, one of the two big decisions the Supreme Court will hand down at least early in this election season. That was clearly very important to Donald Trump. And I think the fact that he is going to still be on the ballot, not only spares us all huge chaos in the election in November, because if the court had gone the other way, you could have had attempts to throw President Joe Biden off the ballot in some conservative states. It also raises the question, I think, to the extent of which or how
far Donald Trump will have to pay some accountability for his actions in the 2020 election before he tries to win back the White House, as you say, in 2024. Later this week, as you mentioned, we've got another huge event, which is the Super Tuesday you said of 15 Republican primaries, which will probably bring Donald Trump to touching distance of the Republican nomination. And then, on Thursday, the focus will be back on present Joe Biden who has got huge political problems domestically and internationally. And he will have his State of the Union address, his perhaps most crucial speech of the year as he seeks his own second term.
SOLOMON: Stephen, how do you think that this ruling this morning from the Supreme Court will be perceived by voters? And it's important to note that, as we said this was unanimous, meaning that both the -- all of the conservatives but also the liberals agreed with this ruling.
COLLINSON: I think that is important, not just for the judicial legitimacy of this verdict, but for the way it will be perceived politically. If it had been the usual six-three down party lines on Supreme Court, I think it would have been a lot more contentious. The interesting thing to me is whether this consensus on the court will be also in evidence when they hear the appeal, Donald Trump's appeal and claims of massive presidential immunity of the end of April, a ruling we expect perhaps to come by the end of June. That is a much more difficult case, I think, a much more subtle one.
And it's easy to see that some of the conservative justices may not be willing to go along with a nine nothing verdict, as much as the Chief Justice John Roberts might want that to be the case because he is always trying to insulate the court from political pressures. So, I think that is something it's going to be very interesting to see when we hear that case towards the end of April.
SOLOMON: Speaking of trying to insulate the court from political pressures, the court in this ruling sort of sidestepped the most thorny political issue, which is did the former President engage or incite an interaction on January 6, just sort of completely bypassing that altogether in this ruling? I'm wondering if you think politically that matters for Trump voters. He -- a win is a win. Or does it matter that they sort of didn't really get to whether he committed insurrection?
COLLINSON: I don't think it'll matter for Trump voters because they long ago decided that the former President didn't indulge in an insurrection. I think from the court's point of view, if you don't have to get into a very thorny political issue, such as over insurrection, why would you do so? Because that only becomes more controversial. I think a lot of Democrats will be very disappointed indeed. The Democratic Secretary of State from Colorado, Jena Griswold, reacted to this verdict by saying that the state should have the right to ban an oath-breaking insurrectionist from his ballot.
So, I think you'll see a lot of Democrats take that position and be quite worried that in fact the President -- the former President isn't going to face the same kind of accountability for their -- for his actions after January 6, as many of the people that invaded the Congress have, Trump's supporters, many of whom have been found guilty in courts.
[11:55:00]
SOLOMON: Yeah. She said, in addition to what you pointed out, I'm disappointed in the Supreme Court's decision. Stephen, we're running out of time. But, really quickly, do you think that this ruling does anything to attract moderates or independents to Trump, or does this continue to be what we have already seen, which is his base remaining his base and sort of just continuing on with it?
COLLINSON: I don't think this one particularly will do that. What the former President will argue is that it shows the voters and not just judges should decide this election. That might be a message that will appeal to some people in the middle. But, I think when we get the immunity ruling, that is going to be another issue.
SOLOMON: Well, as you're saying in your piece, it is a defining week for U.S. politics, and the week is just beginning. So, great to have you along for the ride. Stephen Collinson, thank you.
COLLINSON: Thanks.
SOLOMON: And thank you for watching today. I'm Rahel Solomon in New York. Stick with CNN. One World is coming up next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[12:00:00]
