Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Unanimous Decision, Supreme Court Maintains Trump's Candidacy in Colorado. Aired 10:30-11a ET

Aired March 04, 2024 - 10:30   ET

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

[10:30:00]

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST, FORMER ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NY, AND FORMER FEDERAL AND NEW JERSEY STATE PROSECUTOR: The point of disagreement -- and Joan, correct me if I'm getting this wrong, this is a fast read, is the majority, the six justices, other than the three liberals say, only Congress. The only way this can work is if Congress passes a law saying, here's how we will determine whether someone is or is not an insurrectionist.

The three liberals say, you didn't have to go that far. It would have been enough to just say, states can't do it, and then let everyone else figure out how to do it. I mean, essentially the liberals say, there could be other ways that this could be enforced by the states other than if Congress gives them permission.

So, basically --

JIM ACOSTA, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF DOMESTIC CORRESPONDENT: Yes, what about a successful prosecution of Donald Trump --

HONIG: Exactly. That's exactly --

ACOSTA: -- or another presidential candidate for insurrection?

HONIG: Exactly right. So, this --

ACOSTA: Yes.

HONIG: -- the liberals say basically --

ACOSTA: So, why do you need Congress to weigh in then?

HONIG: That's a perfect example. So, the liberals say, take this scenario where someone were successfully prosecuted for insurrection. The liberals say, that should be enough. But the conservatives, six conservatives say, no, you still just need Congress.

ACOSTA: Yes, it --

JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN SENIOR SUPREME COURT ANALYST: No, let me just correct that real quick.

HONIG: Yes.

BISKUPIC: Only five of the conservatives.

HONIG: Oh, five.

BISKUPIC: Amy Coney Barrett does break away from them. But she says, I'm breaking away, you're going too far, but I am not going to engage in the tone that my colleagues --

DANA BASH, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT AND CNN ANCHOR, INSIDE POLITICS: Liberals.

BISKUPIC: -- to the left are saying.

ACOSTA: But --

BISKUPIC: Yes.

ACOSTA: And here's a question that I have, because it is, again, it seems like the Supreme Court is in a bubble, or perhaps it's -- some of the justices are in a bubble and they're not dealing with -- I mean, when they say, oh, Congress can do this. There are members of Congress -- and we can go through the list, who are never going to do anything that would make life difficult for Donald Trump. So, to think that the Congress is going to solve this, they can -- they barely can get a post office name these days.

BASH: It's true. I mean, and you can go down the list of Supreme Court decisions that kicked whatever issue over across the street over to Congress. Whether it is -- I mean, you know, Obamacare, which is something that the Democrats were very happy about when they did that a different -- a little bit of a different kind of court. Voting rights, I think is maybe the primary example --

ACOSTA: Right.

BASH: -- of what you're saying before this.

You know, look, unfortunately for America, the court isn't necessarily wrong that this is the way the framers wanted it to be. They wanted Congress, the people who are closest to their constituents, to be able to make the rules of the laws. That doesn't change the fact that because of gerrymandering in the House and all kinds of other issues, they're not doing their job on a lot of these big issues.

ACOSTA: Yes.

HONIG: I agree, it's very unlikely. Close to impossible that Congress will take action. But this is now a fair question that Manu Raju and Melanie Zanona should be asking members of Congress. Are you willing to pass legislation that would give us rules for how this works? It could only be in the future, by the way. Even if Congress passed a law tomorrow. They're not going to be able to apply it backwards to Trump. So, that's, that's an important question for Congress moving forward.

ACOSTA: And Joan, I mean, one of the things that I -- you know, find -- you know, kind of, interesting about the conservatives on the Supreme Court is that they are originalists, it seems, when they want to be. And, you know, in this case, here you have text from, you know, after the Civil War, and this is going back a ways. Why not honor, it's in the text, you can't have somebody in there who's involved in an insurrection.

BISKUPIC: Well, both sides made pretty good textualist arguments, but the majority went with the -- actually in all nine essentially went with the scope that Donald Trump's team was arguing there. And it's understandable given that this provision had never been invoked in this kind of way since the late 1800s. It was adopted to stop former confederate leaders from holding future office. So, that was understandable.

It's kind of the wide sweep here. And the message it signs -- sends. I thought this was the case that was going to be the easy one. I think the immunity one is going to be more trickier for these justices.

ACOSTA: Interesting.

BISKUPIC: But I thought this could be easier for the nine just to coalesce. But now we see why it took four weeks. because clearly, these concurring justices, essentially, dissenting in tone of the three liberals --

BASH: Were not at vote.

BISKUPIC: -- were taking, you know, decided to lay down a marker that they wanted to say, once again, this conservative majority is serving something other than the law here.

ACOSTA: Yes, and it's interesting -- I mean, we got to go, but there's also the notion that, you know, we used to say all the time, states run elections in this country. Well, to some extent, not as much as they used to with this decision.

HONIG: Yes, they actually addressed that in their opinion. They say not when it comes to -- necessarily when it comes to federal offices, especially they say the president's interests.

ACOSTA: Interesting. All right, guys. Great conversation. We didn't get through all of the discussion points that we could have gotten through, but great --

BASH: We can do it on "Inside Politics".

ACOSTA: We'll do it on "Inside Politics". There's a great show coming up.

BASH: See what I did there?

ACOSTA: You did it. You definitely did it. All right.

All right. And we're anticipating the former president to make some comments on all of this around noon eastern. So, Dana will have that with her panel to chew on and we'll be right back. Thanks everybody.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) [10:35:00]

LAURA COATES, CNN SENIOR AND CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR, AND SIRIUSXM HOST, "THE LAURA COATES SHOW": OK. We are back now in front of the Supreme Court of the United States. They have made a very consequential decision. We've all been waiting to figure out what they would do about the issue of whether Donald Trump, the former president of the United States, would actually be on the Colorado ballot.

Remember, there are a number of states, Paula, that have asked this very question, whether to keep him on the ballot or disqualify him. Under this, the insurrection ban of the 14th Amendment. They have made a decision. He remains on the ballot. They say, a patchwork system where different states would have different rules, different burdens of proof to figure out whether or not he has been an insurrectionist or not. Cannot apply. They don't want to go into the detail of the criminal matter at all. He has not been criminally charged, but this is considered a win for Donald Trump.

[10:40:00]

PAULA REID, CNN SENIOR LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: It's a huge win for Donald Trump, and this is very much what we expected coming out of oral arguments. The justices on both sides of the aisle appeared skeptical of Colorado's argument that they could remove a candidate for the presidency off of a state ballot. And we heard the chief justice, kind of, signal this during the arguments. Asking if this is really what was intended, that each state could potentially be removing some people, not be removing other people for a national office. So, it is what we expected.

And if you listen to the arguments, if you look at what little case law there is on this, this does appear to be the correct decision based on the law, and really the lack of clarity around Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

COATES: Now, this is unanimous, but there is a concurring opinion from the three so called liberal justices. They do not believe they had to go as far as they did in the majority. They all had the same discussion and result, which is a patchwork cannot work. But when it comes down to -- I think I'm seeing on the screen, when it comes down to what actually is supposed to happen, there is a moment the justices talk about the opportunity being foreclosed to have any other ability of other people to look at this case.

And so, the idea of going too far or going further, I should say, look, it might be the case that in this instance, Congress is supposed to act or not. They seem to think they're disclosing this or foreclosing at all.

REID: They went too far, even though they agree with the overall opinion. And this is likely, Laura, what took so long, right? You were able to get this narrow consensus about this concern, about a patchwork across the country.

COATES: Right.

REID: Different states having different candidates on their ballots. But these three liberal justices say they went too far. Now, what's interesting is Justice Barrett, she also had a concurring opinion where she didn't want to adopt the same language that the liberal justices had, but she also acknowledges the moment, right, we're all in. She talks about how it is not the time to amplify disagreement with stridency. The court has settled a politically charged issue in a volatile season of a presidential election. Particularly in this circumstance, writings on the court should turn the national temperature down, not up.

And that's interesting because it speaks to the real challenge. The legal questions are complicated enough. But this case arrived at the Supreme Court at a moment that they are increasingly under scrutiny, not only for questions about ethics, but also about partisanship.

COATES: Right.

REID: Which is why this really is a victory for the Chief Justice, that even if everybody didn't agree with every word, and you do have concurrences, you were able to get a 9-0 opinion on such a consequential issue.

COATES: You know, the Secretary of State for Colorado, remember, this is the person who was actually charged with trying to just disqualify him from the election said this statement, I am disappointed in the U.S. Supreme Court's decision stripping states of the authority to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment for fellow candidates. Colorado should be able to bar oath breaking insurrectionists from our ballot.

A really important statement. Now, this goes back to the heart of the matter, right? Of whether a state is able to actually disqualify or has to go to a federal government official or a state official. But, Paula, the timing of this is really important. I want to look ahead though, because this case was quickly seized upon by the Supreme Court for an oral argument hearing, for the oral argument itself, and now a ruling.

If that same timeline were to hold, we have an April 22nd oral argument for the immunity issue. About a month could go by before a decision is made. What would that mean for a Trump trial down the line, if they find he is not immune?

REID: Look, this is such a great question because as much as we're grappling with historic constitutional questions, timing is everything. Because a former president is only not trying to delay the ballot eligibility question, but his two criminal cases, his federal ones, he's trying to push them until after the election. Because if he's reelected, he can make them go away. So, any delay. A day, a week, a month works to his advantage.

So, when it comes to the immunity case, we know they're going to hear it on April 22nd. A lot of really smart people who cover the court believe that we won't get a decision until late June, because that's usually when the court issues their most significant decisions.

But then that really throws into question, assuming that the former president doesn't win, which is what look -- sources on his legal team tell me, they don't expect that he'll win when that trial could go. The January 6th --

COATES: When the immunity argument, you're saying?

REID: Exactly. So, the immunity argument is going to be on April 22nd. And then the question of how long does it take the Supreme Court to get us a decision? If they follow this calendar and only take a month, that means we get the decision in late May. That means the trial could potentially be scheduled in August or September.

The Justice Department made it clear on Friday. They believe that there is no limit. There is no carve out ahead of an election when they will not take steps in a criminal case where charges have already been filed. Because you know, sometimes the Justice Department tries not to do anything too close to an election. They seem --

COATES: But they were precise this time?

REID: Yes, they were very clear. For the first time on Friday, they said that doesn't apply here. So, they're willing to start this in September or October. So, the big question is now, all right, the Supreme Court will hear arguments on April 22nd. Will they only take a month, like they did here to solve a massive question, or will they wait until the end of the term, which is their custom?

Now here, clearly, they were right under the deadline of Super Tuesday, which is where the Colorado Republican Party had asked them to come out and decide this.

[10:45:00]

But again, we're always looking at timing. Any clues on how long it takes them to make these decisions. That in some ways is even more important than the decision itself in terms of whether the former president sees the inside of a federal courtroom for a criminal case before the election.

COATES: He will of course, Jim, see the inside of a courtroom for a state level case. Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan D.A., on the so-called hush money payment case coming up in later March. Back to you.

ACOSTA: All right. Laura and Paula, thank you for that fantastic analysis there from outside the Supreme Court this morning. Really, really appreciate it.

Joining me now is CNN's Kristen Holmes from West Palm Beach, Florida. Kristen, what are you hearing from inside the Trump campaign? Obviously, they're very happy about this decision.

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN U.S. NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Jim, they're thrilled for a number of reasons, and it's not just this decision. Overall, they have a rosy outlook at what's going on with Donald Trump's legal issues.

Now, I am told that Trump will speak. He's going to give him remarks at his Mar-a-Lago home in response to this decision. And make no mistake, they view this as a win. Going into this, and I think we heard Paula kind of talking about this, they believed that they were going to win this case. They believe of all the legal challenges that they are facing, that this is the one that they actually had the strongest argument on. Obviously, they did so, so you can expect a victory lap from the former president today.

But the other part of this is that immunity claim. The fact that the Supreme Court has decided to listen to that, to hold arguments on that which won't be until April 22nd. Again, as you heard Paula saying, this delays that trial. Now, whether or not it actually delays it past the November election, Trump's team seems to think that it will. That it's going to be after November 2024.

Now, again, we don't have any solid information if that's true but this is a win for them because this has been what they have been fighting for the entire time. Delay, delay, delay. That is their biggest tactic in trying to get this to happen after the election and with the hopes that Donald Trump will then be president of the United States and these can all be put to rest or he will put them to rest up.

So, again, legally speaking, there have been times of darkness for the Trump campaign and times of more brightness. And this is one of the times where they're feeling very good heading into this. But obviously, as you noted, he is going to be going to trial in New York. He is going to still sit for that on March 26. The big question now is how does he do that and juggle a presidential campaign since tomorrow is Super Tuesday?

He's looking poised to win in pretty much every single state. And he's looking like he's inching towards the Republican nomination. So, how is he going to actually juggle courtroom appearances and the campaign trail when he is forced to go to those courtroom appearances? It's not just on his whim when he feels like it.

ACOSTA: All right. Kristen Holmes, thank you very much.

Let's continue the conversation. Joining me now, CNN Political Commentator Karen Finney, who served as senior adviser and spokeswoman during Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign. And Olivia Troye, a former adviser to Vice President Mike Pence.

Olivia, let me start with you first. What do you think?

OLIVIA TROYE, FORMER ADVISER TO MIKE PENCE: Well, you know, Jim, this is actually what I had been concerned about when I first heard about this case in Colorado. I had been concerned that it -- should it go to the Supreme Court, they would rule this way. And the reason for my concern is while I do -- I mean, like, I'm glad we are a nation of the rule of law, and the highest court in the United States has ruled on this, and that is important, right? We are still, right now, effectively a democracy. But in the court of public opinion, Trump will take this, spin it, spread the misinformation, disinformation on it, and Americans aren't going to get into weeds like we are right now. They're just going to hear, I was wrong. This is another example. Even the Supreme Court agrees with the fact that I was wrong. That's what they're going to hear.

And in terms of the delays that we're seeing with these cases, I'll say that it just gives him more time to gain that momentum behind him and gain that momentum behind the Trump campaign. So, it's a win for them.

ACOSTA: Karen, I have to ask and it may be a bit counterintuitive here. Is it possible that, you know, Trump getting away with all sorts of things and, you know, not being held accountable in the court of law, getting a break from the Supreme Court left and right. If he's going to be on the ballot, does that motivate Democrats? Do Democrats say, OK, well now we got to go beat him at the ballot box?

KAREN FINNEY, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR AND FORMER SENIOR ADVISER, HILLARY CLINTON'S 2016 CAMPAIGN: Right. Absolutely. And look, I'll be -- you know, I think for Democrats, that was really our preference. We were concerned about -- we've been talking a lot about timing this morning, about the timing of this being so close to the election. It would have been very different if it was three years ago, for example, or two years ago. And so, we would rather beat him at the ballot box.

Here's the other thing, Jim, though, that I think we've got to consider. We've seen numerous polls show that Americans want to know whether -- what the outcome of these various cases will be, because it will impact their decision. And so, one of the things -- I completely agree, we're going to see a victory lap from Trump. He's going to talk about how he was right. And, you know, he would have done that regardless of what the outcome was.

But the thing that Democrats could do, which having worked for Hillary Clinton, we've had done -- I've seen this tactic used against a candidate. What about what we don't know?

[10:50:00]

So, as voter concerns about wanting to know the outcomes of these cases increases, there's an opportunity to increase their anxiety about what we don't know. So, just as he's trying to kick the can down the road, that's an opportunity for Democrats to, again, continue to raise the concerns about, well, what is he hiding?

So, I think that ultimately this is going to play in a couple of different ways. And yes, it means we got to beat him at the ballot box and that may motivate our base.

ACOSTA: And Olivia, what about the fact that Supreme Court did not take up whether he was an insurrectionist?

TROYE: Well, I think that's an interesting question and I think it's interesting the way they sort of laid it out. Some of them said, you know, this is really a question for Congress. They should write the legislation. And I'm like, well, OK. But what happens if some of these insurrectionists are actually serving in Congress and support the insurrectionists, right? I mean, that's a -- that's an interesting question right there. So, I think they didn't want to broach that at all.

ACOSTA: All right. Well, I wish we had more time. We're going to keep the conversation going next time guys. Karen Finney, Olivia Troye, I got a sneak in a quick break after all that breaking news, but really great to talk to both of you. Really appreciate it. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:55:00]

ACOSTA: And we're continuing to follow the breaking news this hour. The Supreme Court has just sided with Former President Donald Trump ruling he should appear on Colorado's primary ballot. Joining me now to discuss is Larry Sabato, Director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia.

Larry, I -- you know, to get your take on all that, I did want to play a little bit of sound from Trump over the weekend. And, you know, he's still ginning up, you know, all of these unfounded lies about what took place in the 2020 election. That the election was stolen from him. He was doing it again over the weekend. Let's play that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT AND U.S. REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I stand before you today, not only as your past and hopefully future president, but as a proud political dissident and as a public enemy of a rogue regime. This is a rogue and dangerous machine. This is a anti-Democratic machine.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ACOSTA: You know, Larry, the Supreme Court did not want to deal with this issue of whether or not Trump is an insurrectionist, but he keeps ginning up this insurrectionist like rhetoric.

LARRY SABATO, CENTER FOR POLITICS DIRECTOR, UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA: Of course he does. He'll never change because it's worked for him and it may work again. You know, in the end, Jim, you can't save people from themselves. If they're determined to reelect him after he organized that insurrection, arguably our first coup d'etat, then there's nothing to stop the people from doing that.

Now, in particular, the legal system may intervene, but I doubt it. He'll probably -- he's certainly going to be on the ballot. He's certainly going to be the Republican nominee. We'll know that for sure tomorrow if we don't already know it. And that's the way it is. You know, the -- Donald Trump has had a run of great luck in several different dimensions. Although, Jim, both of us have been around a long time and we both know, the worm always turns. Sometimes the worm turns repeatedly during a presidential campaign. So, I don't think one candidate's good luck will hold for eight full months.

ACOSTA: And what about this notion we were just talking about a few moments ago with Karen Finney and Olivia Troye that, perhaps, the Democrats need a good kick in the pants here? And if the courts aren't going to bar Trump from running for office. If the courts aren't going to weigh in in time as to whether or not he tried to defraud the American people in trying to overturn the election in 2020. Democrats are going to have to be motivated and get out.

SABATO: Yes, and that's exactly what President Biden needs and it's what Democrats should have already done. I think maybe this will help. Although you never know with Democrats, but I think it is possible that this will assist the Biden campaign in motivating them and getting them out to work and giving money and a broader group thinking about the difference between a Biden presidency and a Trump presidency going forward.

You know, the second Trump administration, if there is one, is going to be very different than the first. It really is. And if you care about democracy and constitutionalism, then you have every right to be concerned. Notice what he did, Jim. He always turns an effective attack around. He's the one who has threatened democracy. He's the one who organized a potential coup d'etat. Not Joe Biden. But now it's Joe Biden, according to Donald Trump, who's a threat to democracy. I'd laugh if it weren't so sad.

ACOSTA: Yes. I mean, he calls himself a dissident and so on. It is laughable, but Larry, I mean, you and I can break this down on a news program. The rest of the mainstream media can point out the lies that he tells out on the campaign trail. But the people who are in his base aren't really tuned into that. They are taking their cues from him.

SABATO: Well, we've known that for a long time, and that's how he gets millions of votes.

ACOSTA: Yes. And, and just finally, the Supreme Court, what's your sense of it? How they ruled today?

SABATO: Well, you can justify their decision and it was, in the end, unanimous. Though, clearly the liberals differed as far as the reasoning was concerned. But I'm going to laugh again at the suggestion, well, Congress should take care of this.

[11:00:00]