Return to Transcripts main page

One World with Zain Asher

U.S. Supreme Court Rules Trump Should Remain On The Colorado Presidential Primary Ballot; U.S. Presses For Temporary Ceasefire In Israel-Hamas Conflict To Get That Humanitarian Aid In And Hostages Out; Haiti In A State Of Emergency; Former President Donald Trump Remarks On Supreme Court Ruling. Aired 12-1p ET

Aired March 04, 2024 - 12:00   ET




VOICE-OVER: This is CNN Breaking News.

BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN INTERNATIONAL HOST: Hello, everyone. Live from New York, I'm Bianna Golodryga. Zain is off today. You are watching "One

World". Well, the question of whether Donald Trump can be removed from the ballot has been resolved.

In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court says Trump should remain on the Colorado presidential primary ballot. Colorado Supreme Court had barred

him, finding that he had taken part in an insurrection. A handful of other states issued similar rulings after that.

But a majority of the Supreme Court justices said that it was not up to states to bar individuals from federal office under Section Three of the

14th Amendment, saying that that power rests with Congress. Four of the justices said that the majority went too far in outlining how an

insurrectionist could be banned.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett summed it up this way -- "The court has settled a politically charged issue in the volatile season of a presidential

election. Primarily in this circumstance, writings on the court should 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."

While on his Truth Social platform, Trump declared it, quote, a "Big win for America." We do expect Donald Trump to speak live at any moment, and we

will bring that to you when it happens.

First, let's get right to CNN Justice Correspondent Jessica Schneider. So, Jessica, the specific question at hand, did the Colorado Supreme Court err

in ordering President Trump excluded from the 2024 presidential ballot? Well, that, the Supreme Court unanimously agreed as yes. But from there, we

see some divisions among the justices. Walk us through them.

JESSICA SCHNEIDER, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, Bianna, so all nine of the justices agreeing on that crucial question that Trump should remain on

the ballot. And the justices really stepped in at the 11th hour here, you know, one day before Super Tuesday. And they wanted to add some certainty

to those voters in the 15 states headed to the polls tomorrow.

So, now, those voters know that all of the justices, all nine, said that Donald Trump will be on the ballot. And if people vote for him, their votes

will count. So, that was the unanimous part of this.

Where there was that five-four split was in the particulars. Five of the justices here, the majority, so that's what rules, said that states can't

unilaterally decide to take presidents or any federal officers off the ballot.

And instead, that's a decision that Congress would have to make in the form of legislation to decide which candidates could be disqualified by the 14th

Amendment so-called insurrection ban. And remember, the insurrection ban was what -- was at the heart of this case. That clause in Section Three

that says any officer of the United States who engages in insurrection can be barred from holding office.

It was Colorado, also Maine and Illinois that 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 stepping in to say that a state cannot decide who is on or off the ballot in federal elections.

We saw Donald Trump already weighing in on this, saying it's a big win for America. But on the flip side, the Colorado Secretary of State, Jenna

Griswold, she really spoke out with disdain on social media. She says she's disappointed. And then she continued to argue this, saying that "Colorado

should be able to bar oath-breaking insurrectionists from our ballot."

So, Bianna, the unanimous decision from the Supreme Court saying that Trump should be on the ballot, it draws all kinds of reactions. But really the

takeaway is that Trump will be on all the primary ballots moving forward.

And crucially, you know, there's no question that if he is the Republican nominee that he will be on the general election ballot. That was something

that was really hanging in the balance before this decision from the Supreme Court.

So, the justices, all nine of them, deciding this narrow issue, keeping Trump on the ballot. Bianna, what they didn't address was what the courts

in Colorado had ruled, that Trump engaged in insurrection.

That really wasn't something that was part of the arguments either. So the justices really just steering clear of that, not even getting into that

issue, only the issue of whether Trump can appear on the ballot, saying that, yes, he can and will. Bianna.

GOLODRYGA: Yeah, they've had a month to decide on this case. And it comes, crucially, 24 hours before Americans take to an important primary vote

tomorrow. And that is Super Tuesday. Justice Correspondent Jessica Schneider, thank you.

Now let's bring in Trial Attorney Misty Marris for more on this. First, Misty, just your take in reading this decision. Any surprises in your view?


MISTY MARRIS, TRIAL ATTORNEY: I really wasn't surprised and a lot of that is because I watched the arguments, the entirety of the oral arguments. And

I got the sense during that time that this decision was really foreshadowed.

The reason being, the court was very, very focused on whether or not states actually had the right and ability under the Constitution to take an action

like this when it relates to a federal office. The questions were so focused on that. The other piece of this, and this is where the majority of

the court goes a step further, they say that Congress actually has to act.

They have to have -- pass some sort of law or legislation that would allow this particular type of action to be taken, taking off the ballot from the

federal level. So, all of that was really foreshadowed.

We heard these arguments about whether or not the Constitution in this sense, this section, was self-effectuating. And that's really where the

decision lies here, that the court really found that the states don't have that power and that the Congress would actually have to act in order to

take action.

GOLODRYGA: Yeah, let me just read for our viewers some of the decision from the majority here, and that is, "The Constitution empowers Congress to

prescribe how these determinations should be made. The relevant provision is Section Five which enables Congress, subject of course to judicial

review, to pass appropriate legislation to enforce the 14th Amendment. We conclude that states may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold

state office, but states have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section Three with respect to federal offices, especially the presidency."

So, we have that. Then we hear sort of a dissenting take from the minority here. Four other justices, we showed our viewers what Justice Amy Coney

Barrett had to say, where she said, "I agree that the states lack the power to enforce Section Three against presidential candidates. That principle is

sufficient to resolve this case, and I would decide no more than that." Then you have the three liberal justices, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson,

writing that, "The majority went further than necessary to decide the case."

They wrote, "To allow Colorado to take a presidential candidate off the ballot under Section Three would imperil the framers' vision of a federal

government directly responsible to the people. The court should have started and ended its opinion with this conclusion." What do you make of

their disagreement here in terms of how the majority went one step further in their decision?

MARRIS: Right, and that's exactly it. So, everybody agrees on the outcome, that that Colorado decision is overturned. However, what the three justices

are arguing in their opinion is that the majority went a step too far, and going a step too far, and by saying that, in order for any action to be

taken under this insurrection ban section of the Constitution, that legislation must be passed, that Congress has to act.

Now, the reason that the judges are at odds with that is because they say that closes the door to any other kind of federal-level enforcement. So,

saying the states don't have the ability to act in this manner with a federal office, everyone was good on that point.

But taking it a step further and basically saying there'd be no avenue to approach this without some sort of legislation from Congress, the three

justices disagree with that. They say it shuts the door and it overly protects Donald Trump because it does not leave a path to pursue anything

under that insurrection section of the Constitution.

GOLODRYGA: Yeah, these dissenting justices say that the majority went one step too far in deciding on something that wasn't even presented before the

court in terms of a decision that they were ruling on in this moment. Trial Attorney Misty Marris, thank you so much. Appreciate having you on.

A key member of Israel's war cabinet is in Washington amid growing calls for a ceasefire in Gaza. Benny Gantz is also one of the main rivals of

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He'll meet U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris in just a few hours.

It is a sign of the strained relations between the Biden administration and Israel's right-wing government right now, as Harris steps up the pressure

for Israel to do more to ease the suffering in Gaza.


KAMALA HARRIS, U.S. VICE PRESIDENT: What we are seeing every day in Gaza is devastating. We have seen reports of families eating leaves or animal feed,

women giving birth to malnourished babies with little or no medical care, and children dying from malnutrition and dehydration.


GOLODRYGA: Now, this, as truce talks appear to be at an impasse. Hamas delegation is in Cairo to discuss a ceasefire and hostage deal ahead of

Ramadan. But Israel hasn't sent negotiators.


Israel is also keeping up its bombardment of Gaza. A top U.N. official says Gaza has become a powder keg which could spill over at any time.


VOLTER TURK, U.N. HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS: The war in Gaza has already generated dangerous spillover in neighboring countries, and I'm

deeply concerned that in this powder keg, any spark could lead to a much broader conflagration. This would have implications for every country in

the Middle East and many beyond it.


GOLODRYGA: CNN's Jeremy Diamond is tracking the developments from Tel Aviv, and White House Correspondent Arlette Saenz is in Washington for us. Let's

begin at the White House. And Arlette, with you, what more are we expecting from this meeting today with Benny Gantz and the Vice President?

It is notable that it is coming after we heard those really tough and sharp remarks yesterday from Vice President Harris reinforcing current

administration policy, but with a lot more of an impassioned tone.

ARLETTE SAENZ, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Bianna, Vice President Kamala Harris will meet with Benny Gantz around 3 o'clock, so in about

three hours, here at the White House. He is also slated to meet with National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan. And officials have said there's

reporting from our colleagues, that Israeli officials have said that Benny Gantz is not representing the Israeli government while he is part of this


Our colleague Alex Marquardt reported that Israel's ambassador to the U.S. was told not to participate in these meetings between Gantz and various

U.S. officials, and it does come at a time when the U.S. has been ramping up pressure on Israel, specifically when it comes to trying to ease the

humanitarian situation in Gaza.

You heard Vice President Kamala Harris there speaking quite forcefully about the situation on the ground, saying that people were starving and

facing inhumane conditions, and it's the belief of the Biden administration that Israel needs to do more to get additional humanitarian aid into Gaza.

She said yesterday that there's no excuse for this, that President Biden has also said that Israel needs to have more aid trucks going in, open more

routes for that assistance to get in, and the U.S. has done some work as well, very small work in trying to airdrop some food to people in the


But it also comes as the U.S. is pressing for this temporary ceasefire of about six weeks to get that humanitarian aid in, but also to get the

hostages out. The U.S. officials have been working around the clock.

There are currently talks underway in Cairo to see if they can reach some type of agreement. The President had been hopeful that today would be the

day that they would have some type of deal when it came to this latest push for a ceasefire, but so far that has not come to fruition. So, this is

something that the administration has been pushing for quite some time.

And just yesterday you really heard the Vice President speaking, making one of the most forceful cases for this for an immediate ceasefire of a

temporary nature so far of this administration.

Of course, this comes as they're not just dealing with this conflict overseas, but also the domestic pressure here at home. President Biden has

been pressed to act trying to get a full ceasefire in Gaza. That is something that so far the White House has resisted calling for, but we've

heard from wings, elements of the Democratic Party who are frustrated with the President for the way that he's approached this conflict, for the way

that he's supported Netanyahu as he wages this military campaign against Gaza.

So, what we've been hearing from White House officials, from the President on down over the course of the past few weeks is really trying to push for

this temporary ceasefire. They had hoped by Ramadan, which is set to begin on Sunday. Right now, it's entirely unclear whether they'll be able to make

that timeline.

GOLODRYGA: Yeah, and the Vice President reiterating yesterday the onus is on Hamas to agree to a deal that would see those hostages come home, that

would open the opportunity for a six-week -- up to six-week temporary ceasefire. Arlette Saenz thank you.

Well, let's go now to Tel Aviv and CNN's Jeremy Diamond. Jeremy, quite unusual to see such divisions among Israeli leaders playing out so publicly

with Netanyahu yet to travel to the White House. And here you have a member of his war cabinet on an unofficial visit here. And yet we don't have

anybody from the Israeli delegation participating in those hostage negotiations now in Cairo. How is this all playing out internally in


JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, certainly the Israeli Prime Minister and his allies are taking umbrage to Benny Gantz's visit to the

United States without coordinating it beforehand. Apparently, Gantz only informed the Israeli Prime Minister of his plans to travel to Washington on

Friday, and that was viewed as a breach of protocol.

In fact, an Israeli government official making clear to us today that Gantz does not represent the Israeli government during this trip. And following

that, as Arlette noted, the Israeli ambassador not coordinating this visit. Of course, this isn't the first time that we've seen signs of a rift.


I mean, it's important to remember that Gantz and Netanyahu were bitter political rivals before Gantz decided to enter this emergency unity

government, becoming a key member of this war cabinet. And in doing so, he certainly didn't wipe away years of political animus between the two men or

undo the fact that they still very much remain political rivals.

And you can be sure that the White House is very, very aware of that and that they're also thinking about what the future may hold in Israel. If you

look at the current polls, you know, if the elections were to be held today, Benny Gantz would likely be Israel's next prime minister. He is more

popular than Netanyahu, and he would command more seats in the Knesset in order to be able to form a government in the future.

And so, the United States, in particular, as Netanyahu has been repeatedly thumbing his eye in the face of the White House's efforts to try and create

a pathway for a Palestinian state after this war ends, there's no question that the White House is looking for another potential ally in Israel.

That doesn't mean that they're going to try and influence the democratic process in Israel. It doesn't mean that they're going to put their thumb on

the scale. But they certainly view Benny Gantz as someone who it is important for them to have a relationship with going forward. And they know

very well that he could be the next Prime Minister of Israel.

Now, at the same time, Gantz is still a member of the War Cabinet. I've spoken with advisers to him who've said that there's no indication that

he's going to leave that War Cabinet for now, certainly while the war is in full swing. But at some point, he will. And so from Gantz's perspective, he

also wants to maintain those relationships with the White House.

And there's no question that he will be influential in determining how or when Israel agrees to some kind of a deal here to free the hostages. He has

really been at the forefront in the Cabinet alongside some of his other allies who joined that War Cabinet in terms of saying it's important to

focus on getting the hostages out.

We can defeat Hamas at a later date if necessary. But you can be sure that he will have a different calculus on the importance of striking a deal than

perhaps the Israeli Prime Minister himself. And so, he is a key player at a very key moment here.

GOLODRYGA: No doubt this visit creating a lot of additional pressure on Prime Minister Netanyahu watching this from afar. Jeremy Diamond, thank

you. Coming up for us, surging gang violence, prison breaks, the security situation is worsening in Haiti, and CNN is on the ground with a firsthand



CAITLIN HU, CNN SENIOR EDITOR: You can see they're getting ready.

DAVID CULVER, CNN SENIOR U.S. NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, our drivers all geared up now, ready for a potential gunfire to come our way.




GOLODRYGA: Haiti's government has imposed a state of emergency and a curfew amid a new spate of extreme gang violence.


GOLODRYGA: The U.N. estimates that gangs control about 80 percent of the capital and are fighting to seize the rest. Also over the weekend, a deadly

gang assault on the capital's main prison allowed thousands of inmates to escape.

Haiti has been engulfed in turmoil for years, but many fear that the country is on the brink of exploding. CNN's David Culver has just returned

from a trip to Port-au-Prince and he joins us live from Los Angeles. David, tell us more about your reporting.

CULVER: Hey there, Bianna. Well, first to what broke out over the weekend. You're right. I mean, this is a state of emergency that's underway right

now in Haiti. And over the past 72 hours, we've seen just an increase in violence that has raised this to a critical level.

And you mentioned those inmates. An estimated 3000 are believed to have been freed from the prisons there. And according to one police union, they

say if this is true, quote, "We are done. No one will be spared in the capital because there will be 3000 extra bandits." That's how they consider

this. Meantime, this is a country plagued by natural disaster, political turmoil in recent years, now further fractured by violence as we saw



CULVER: So, we're like a block away?


CULVER (voice-over): It's as close as we can get driving. So, we layer up and walk.

CULVER: Oh, yeah. You can already smell it. Wow, look at people just still making their commute as tires are burning right in the middle of the street


CULVER (voice-over): No police barricade, no firefighters. Most seemingly unfazed. These flames have been burning for several hours. Haiti has been

engulfed in turmoil for years.

CULVER: We don't have a home to live in. We don't have food to eat. That's what they're shouting.

CULVER (voice-over): Many here now fear their country is on the brink of exploding.

CULVER: Does it feel safe right now?

JUNOT SAMEDI, PROTESTER: No, no. It doesn't. It doesn't. It doesn't -- safe. My country is broken right now.

CULVER (voice-over): These folks blame the current government and Prime Minister Ariel Henry. Appointed following the assassination of President

Jovenel Moise in 2021, they want Henry to go. But he says he's not yet ready to step down. This has panicked street shootouts like this one have

become a near daily occurrence.

It's often a clash between police and the gangs, which have essentially taken Haiti hostage. They flaunt their weapons and wealth on TikTok,

threatening police and basking in lawlessness. Many residents now living behind barricades.

CULVER: This is not the gangs doing this. This is the folks that live in these neighborhoods who are putting these up to prevent gangs from coming

in and kidnapping.

CULVER (voice-over): Using whatever might stop or slow the kidnappers. Efforts to protect families and preserve innocence. That innocence

shattered for others. This 14-year-old says he was recruited by a gang at 11. Tells me he's often forced to burn the bodies of those killed by other

gang members.

I want to change my way of life, he says with a heavy look of shame. At an early morning food distribution, we meet dozens of women who have felt the

wrath of gang violence. At times, we notice a lost stare in their eyes.

CULVER: All of them had been victims. So, there's nobody here who has never been a victim.

CULVER (voice-over): This woman's sister shot and killed. This one's husband burned alive inside their home. This woman tells us she was raped.

She shows us the marks left behind. In recent months, gangs have seized more and more control over this country including the roads leading to


Officials estimate that gangs now control as much as 80 percent of the capital. Even the U.S. Embassy and International Airport are mostly

surrounded by rival gang territories. It's led the Haitian National Police to create an undercover unit. We go with them to the front lines.

HU: This unit actually goes into gang areas, looks for gang members and fights them.

CULVER (voice-over): The officers ask us not to reveal our exact location. And they tell us to work quickly, given we're standing exposed on a windy


CULVER: As police have described it to me, basically everything behind me is occupied by the gangs. It's under their control. There are homes all

around us. We're standing on the foundation of one home that had been abandoned.

CULVER (voice-over): They offer to drive us closer.

HU: And you can see they're getting ready?

CULVER: Yes, our driver's all geared up now, ready for potential gunfire to come our way. Stay away from the windows as we come in here. They describe

this as the last defensive point. And beyond here is what they consider to be their front lines.

CULVER (voice-over): From here, you can see the battlefield.


No signs of any suspected gang members, for now. Police are not the only ones trying to gain the upper hand here. In a fractured state, alternatives

to the gangs in government surface. We're headed to meet a commander of BSAP, Haiti's Armed Environmental Protection Agency, that has splintered

from the Henry government, challenging its legitimacy.

We pull up to a gated compound. The man in the purple shirt leads us in. He then changes into his BESAP uniform. It's the commander. He's in hiding

from police. His message echoes the anti-government protester. He flexes BSAP's strength in numbers and its potential to help bring stability. But

when it comes to his own family --

CULVER: You mentioned you have four kids. What do you think their future is in this country?

CULVER (voice-over): He fears their future is best served leaving Haiti. The desperation is felt beyond Port-au-Prince, in places like Jeremie. The

U.N. chopper is the safest way to get there. It's about an hour ride. Members of the World Food Program take us through this rural coastal

community, devastated by recent protests.

JEAN-MARTIN BAUER, WFP HAITI DIRECTOR: Right back there, you had five people were killed last week.

CULVER: Right there?

BAUER: It was right there, yeah.

CULVER (voice-over): We arrive at this agricultural consortium. The WFP buys food from these local farmers to then hand out. But the recent

protests have blocked distribution efforts, leaving some food to spoil. It's frustrating for the WFP officials, as they know you don't have to look

far to find hunger here. These farmers pointing to their stomachs, lifting their shirts to us.

CULVER: You hungry?

CULVER: A lot of folks will look at Haiti, and they'll say it's had issues for so long. The question that no doubt people in the U.S. will ask is,

well, why should we help?

BAUER: Well, there are two reasons why you need to help. First of all, it's on humanitarian grounds. But then there's also our own self-interest in the

U.S. So, the longer you wait to act on Haiti, the more migrants there will be on our southern border. It's that simple.

CULVER (voice-over): Many here search for normalcy where they can. Even with the threat of violence, missing mass for some is not an option. They

wear their Sunday best and unite in prayer. Places of worship are not immune from gang terror, but they at least offer a moment of tranquility

and hope for now.


CULVER (on-camera): Sadly, that tranquility and hope shattered over the past 72 hours, Bianna and a lot of that was sparked because of what

happened late last week. Haiti's Prime Minister Ariel Henry was in Kenya. He signed an agreement to deploy a thousand Kenyan security forces to


This is part of a multi-national security support mission, but it's not very popular among folks that we spoke to on the ground. Now, Haiti's Prime

Minister also sparked controversy by saying elections won't be held until August 2025. That's why we're seeing this most recent explosion of


GOLODRYGA: From your reporting, it's so obvious that hope and normalcy is more of a luxury and aspiration than an everyday reality for so many people

there on the ground. Such important reporting, David. I'm really struck by especially the way you captured those women with that lost stare in their

eyes. Thank you so much for bringing us this story.

CULVER: Thank you.

GOLODRYGA: Coming up for us, voters in more than a dozen U.S. states will pick their nominee for the next presidential race. But is the outcome

already known? We'll take a look.



GOLODRYGA: Welcome back to "One World", I'm Bianna Golodryga. Well, the U.S. is heading into one of the most crucial days of the presidential

campaign. We're talking about Super Tuesday. Across the U.S., Democrats are voting in 16 contests and Republicans in 15.

So, why is it super? Well, about a third of the Republican delegates needed to secure the party's nomination are up for grabs. And despite a win in

Washington, D.C.'s primary, Nikki Haley's chances of becoming the Republican nominee are slim to none. Still, she has vowed to stay in the

race, at least through tomorrow's races.


NIKKI HALEY, REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: First of all, when 70 percent of Americans say they don't want Donald Trump or Joe Biden. Yes,

I'm going to keep on fighting.


GOLODRYGA: U.S. President Biden is looking ahead to a likely fight with Donald Trump once again. President Biden told "The New Yorker" magazine

that Trump will contest the results if he loses, or, in his words, "Losers who are losers are never graceful."

Well, time now for The Exchange and a look at this important week in the campaign with the Supreme Court decision and Super Tuesday and a State of

the Union later this week, as well. What am I missing, Brad Whitehouse, the Senior Advisor at the Democratic National Committee? This is a key week,

really the kickoff to what is going to be a very busy and very contentious campaign.


GOLODRYGA: Yeah. And before --

WOODHOUSE: Right, it's a busy week.

GOLODRYGA: Go ahead.

WOODHOUSE: I'm sorry.

GOLODRYGA: Go ahead.

WOODHOUSE: I'm saying it's a busy week. It's exciting, you know, if you're in, you know if you're in politics, all that we have going on, particularly

Super Tuesday.

GOLODRYGA: Yeah, that's one way to describe it -- exciting. I want to have you respond to this headline from the "Financial Times" because it came

over the weekend before we had this ruling from the Supreme Court today that in its narrow decision said that President Trump could -- or former

President Trump could not be excluded and taken off the ballot in Colorado State. But this was the headline in the "F.T." It said, "Trump has momentum

heading into a pivotal week." Would you argue with that assessment? I'm assuming you would.

WOODHOUSE: Well, I would argue with that assessment in this respect. Look, we know who the nominees of the Republican and Democratic parties are going

to be. Joe Biden will be the Democratic nominee. Donald Trump will be the Republican nominee. That notwithstanding, I really encourage in the DNC and

the campaign, and I believe the campaigns on the other side, encourage people to still go vote.

This is an important process. But throughout the course of the Republican primary, a significant protest vote has been lodged against Donald Trump.

He just lost the primary election yesterday in the District of Columbia to Nikki Haley.


GOLODRYGA: Just one, though.

WOODHOUSE: Nikki Haley -- you said -- I'm sorry.

GOLODRYGA: Just one. This is his first real loss.

WOODHOUSE: Well, just one, but he got just above 50 percent in Iowa, just above 50 percent in New Hampshire. And there are a lot of these voters in

the Republican primary and Republican caucuses that are going to the exit posters and saying not only are they voting for someone else, but they're

not going to vote for him if he is the nominee.

He's got a fractured party. The Republican National Committee is out of money. His campaign is having to buy furniture at yard sales. So, I think

this idea that he has all this momentum is kind of misguided.

He's going to be the nominee because he's getting more votes within the primary, but I don't believe he has anywhere near the momentum that Joe

Biden does, who's gotten 97 percent of the vote in South Carolina, 80 percent of the vote in Michigan, and got 64 percent of the vote in New

Hampshire, and he wasn't even on the ballot.

GOLODRYGA: Well, no doubt President Biden has the advantage in terms of financially having a leg up over Trump, but I do want to have you respond

to what we saw and this is now a number of surveys in polls regarding what an election would look like between President Biden and Trump.

And again, neck and neck, "The New York Times"-Siena College over the weekend showing 48 percent Trump to 43 percent Biden among registered

voters. How does the Democratic Party respond to that?

WOODHOUSE: Well, look, the way I respond is polls don't vote. I mean, we've seen in election after election after election, really since Donald Trump's

first elected president, that Democrats overperform and Donald Trump and MAGA underperform. It happened in 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2022, and 2023,

and 2024 in the New York Three Congressional District.

I thought that race was a perfect example of how, you know, going into that, the pollsters and the pundits said that would be a toss-up race. Tom

Suozzi won by eight percentage points, and he ran on the Biden agenda. In fact, he ran on the President's bipartisan border deal, went on offense on

the border where everybody says that we're on defense.

So, I think what we should look at is election results instead of polls, and the election results, we're winning, and Donald Trump, MAGA, and

Republicans are losing.

GOLODRYGA: I'd like to get you to respond to what a Biden campaign official said, and that is that the problem that we've been facing is that a number

of people are telling us that they're not aware that this is a choice between Joe Biden and Donald Trump. March is going to be our time to make

that choice crystal clear. So I'm not even saying that I would buy that argument, but let's, for the sake of this question, say that, yes, they

weren't aware, and now they are.

Given that, and given what's at stake in this pivotal month, according to his own campaign official, what does the President need to do to reverse

things, to really have voters focus in on what he calls accomplishments in his administration, starting off from what we're expected to hear Thursday

at the State of the Union?

WOODHOUSE: Well, first of all, I agree with that assessment. The polls have actually shown that. A lot of people don't believe. They still hear that

Nikki Haley's in the race. A lot of people know about his legal troubles, and I think a lot of people don't believe that he is going to be the

nominee facing Joe Biden.

And we've always believed, from the DNC and the campaign, we've always believed when the American public is aware that the choice, again, is Joe

Biden, with what he's accomplished, and Donald Trump, who is worse than the person that they voted out of office in 2020, that the election will turn

in our favor.

Look, I think what the President needs to do is, first of all, he needs to be as he has been and he's been the President. I mean, we've seen the

strongest economic recovery in the entire world since COVID. We have the best unemployment -- the most steady unemployment below four percent since

the 1960s. Inflation is starting to come down. Gas prices are around $3 a gallon.

So, I think that first and foremost, he needs to continue to be a good president. We've seen consumer confidence is moving up. We've seen poll

numbers on the economy are starting to rise.

GOLODRYGA: Brad, I'm going to interrupt you. We're going to go to former President Trump speaking in response to this ruling from the Supreme Court

at Mar-a-Lago.


DONALD TRUMP, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT, REPUBLICAN U.S. PRESIDENT: I think we're a long way toward bringing our country together, which our country

needs. And 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 -- extremely important.

Essentially, you cannot take somebody out of a race because an opponent would like to have it that way. And it has nothing to do with the fact that

it's the leading candidate, whether it was the leading candidate or a candidate that was well down on the totem pole.


You cannot take somebody out of a race. 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 because while most states were thrilled to have me, there

were some that didn't, and they didn't want that for political reasons. They didn't want that because of poll numbers, because the poll numbers are

very good.

We're beating President Biden in almost every poll. "New York Times" came out yesterday with a very big poll for us. So, they didn't like that, and

you can't do that. You can't do what they tried to do. And hopefully, Colorado, as an example, will unify. I know there's tremendous support.

They brought our support up very strong in Colorado because people thought, people in Colorado thought that was a terrible thing that they did.

And while we're on the subject, and another thing that will be coming up very soon will be immunity for a President, and not immunity for me, but

for any President. If a President doesn't have full immunity, you really don't have a President because nobody that is serving in that office will

have the courage to make, in many cases, what would be the right decision, or it could be the wrong decision.

It could be, in some cases, the wrong decision, but they have to make decisions, and they have to make them free of all terror that can be rained

upon them when they leave office or even before they leave office. And some decisions are very tough. I can tell you that, as a President, that some

decisions to make are very tough. I took out ISIS, and I took out some very big people from the standpoint of a different part of the world, two of the

leading terrorists, probably the two leading terrorists ever that we've ever seen in this world.

And those are big decisions. I don't want to be prosecuted for it. Another President wouldn't want to be prosecuted for it. It had a tremendously

positive impact. It stopped everything cold. And sometimes you have to make those. They were tough decisions. Sometimes you have to make decisions like


When you make a decision, you don't want to have your opposing party or opponent or even somebody that just thinks you're wrong bring a criminal

suit against you or any kind of a suit when you leave office. I have that right now at a level that nobody has ever seen before. I have rogue

prosecutors, and I have rogue judges.

I have judges that are out of control. And it's a very unfair thing for me, but I'm serving perhaps as a sample to others of what should not be

happening when you make good decisions. And in my case, the economy was great. We didn't go into any wars. We totally defeated ISIS. We provided

the largest tax cuts in history. We provided the largest regulation cuts in history.

But think of it, no wars. We beat ISIS 100 percent of the caliphate. And there were no wars. We did a job that was great, but maybe I wouldn't have

done that. The caliphate, defeating them, was very powerful. It was going to take four years. It took me four months. But it was a very strong dictum

that I gave. I said, get them, defeat them, end it.

We were fighting for 20 years against ISIS, and we did it very quickly. I don't want to be prosecuted. In that case, it worked out very well. There

will be some things that perhaps don't work out so well, but I don't want to be prosecuted because I decided to do something that is very much for

the good of the country and actually for the good of the world.

The President shouldn't have that on his mind, and he has to have a free and clear mind when he makes very big decisions o it's going to be nothing

more than a ceremonial post. You'll be President. It'll be a wonderful thing and you won't do anything because you don't want to be hit by your

opponent or hit by somebody else because who wants to leave office and go through what I've gone through?

I'm being prosecuted by Biden, my opponent, because every one of these things, whether it's Fani Willis or Bragg, these are local and state, but

they're in total coordination with the White House. You can't do that. It shouldn't be done. I mean, a thing like that, in the case of the D.A.'s

office, they put one of the top people, maybe the second person, in the Manhattan D.A.'s office to get Trump.

They had a Hillary Clinton lawyer leave the law firm, very prestigious, big law firm, leave the law firm to go into the D.A.'s office to get Trump,

Pomerantz. Mr. Pomerantz. So, he goes in to become a prosecutor, worked for the Democrat Party and Hillary Clinton, goes in to prosecute Donald Trump

at a local level, in total coordination with the Department of Justice, meaning Biden.


And then you have the Fani Willis, or, as she would say, Fani, Fani, F-A-N- I, Fani. And she hired somebody, knew the person, long before this horrible prosecution took place, and she went out and she paid him an unbelievable

amount of money, more money than he ever had dreamt possible, much more money than other people that do that for a living.

He never did it at all, had no experience in it at all. And they had, obviously, a conflict. We don't have to go into that, but they were able to

get a lot of money because it was a high-profile person. Me, I'm a very high-profile person. So, they were able to pay him close to a million

dollars when he was not equipped to do the job, and she's not equipped to do the job, and that case should end immediately. That case is so

conflicted, nobody's ever seen anything like it.

And then you have deranged Jack Smith, who's a Trump-hater and represents all the Trump-haters, and he's going wild. He's just a wild man. He's been

overturned unanimously by the Supreme Court one after other people over the years. He's a great failure. But he's mean, he's nasty, he's unfair. And

the judges on these cases, they're all Trump-haters, other than we have maybe one or two that I think can be fair.

But you look at New York, what's happened. I mean, these people have tremendous hatred. You can't do this to a President. And again, I'm not

talking about me, I'm talking about in the future. A President has to be free. A President has to be, if the President does a good job. I did.

Some people would say a great job. But if the President does a good job, a President should be free and clear, and frankly celebrated for having done

a good job. Not indicted four times, and not gone after on a civil basis, and not demanded to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in fines on

something that was absolutely perfect, where there were no victims, where the financial statements were absolutely flawless, where you have

disclaimer clauses.

I mean, nobody's ever had a thing like this. I wasn't given a jury. And I had a clubhouse judge just come up with this number on a perfect loan and

very conservative financial statements. But even at that, if you look, the disclaimer says don't rely on the financial statements in any way, shape,

or form. Go out and do your own work.

The bank in question had the most sophisticated lawyers in the world, frankly. A very top -- one of the top law firms anywhere in the country.

And they can defend themselves. What guys like Bragg and Letitia James and Fani, and deranged Jack Smith. What they should be doing is fighting

violent crime. And that would lead me to the end.

And I will say that President Biden, number one, stop weaponization. Fight your fight yourself. Don't use prosecutors and judges to go after your

opponent to try and damage your opponent so you can win an election. Our country is much bigger than that.

The other thing I say to President Bide -- close the borders now. This is not sustainable for our country. It's not sustainable for our cities. Our

country is under siege. This is a violent thing that you've done. And many people are dying. Many, many people are dying. They die on the trip up.

They die going through the border. And they die in our country.

But many of the people coming up are from prisons and jails, from mental institutions and insane asylums. Many are terrorists. You see it. Many,

many are terrorists. And I believe the real number that we have right now is probably closer to 15 million people. And by the time the term ends, I

believe, the President's term ends, I believe you'll be at close to 20 million people. That's almost larger than any state in the union.

Our country -- it is not sustainable. Many of these people are tough. Many of these people are bad. They come from some of the roughest countries in

the world and some of the roughest prisons. 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 you are bombing Yemen. You have to stop. You have to close the border.

You have absolute authorization. You don't need Congress. I had the safest border in the history of our country, and I didn't use Congress for it. And

then I built hundreds of miles of wall, and the reason I built it and how I built it was I considered it an invasion of our country.


And I took the money from the military, and the Army Corps of Engineers did it with me, and we did a great job. And we had the safest border we've ever

had, and now we have the most unsafe border anywhere in the world at any time. There's never been a border like this in any country anywhere in the

world. They would have fought with sticks and stones to stop the horrible situation that's occurring.

Our people can't stand it, and the people coming in really can't stand it because they're dying. Many are dying on the trip up, and they're dying in

the country. And also, many of the people are criminals, and they're doing tremendous harm. I call it migrant crime. It's migrant crime. It's a new

category of crime. They're hurting our country horribly, and we've become a laughingstock all over the world.

So, I say respectfully to President Biden, you have the authorization right now. I did it. I didn't go to Congress and say, do I have the right to

close? I fought Congress on it. Close the borders. You can do it right now. You have everything. Use my policies. My policies were great. Everybody

said it. Use my policies.

So, just to finish, I have great respect for the Supreme Court, and I want to just thank them for working so quickly and so diligently and so

brilliantly. And again, this is a unifying factor. Everybody and I -- together, and they can go after me as a politician.

They can go after me with votes, but they're not going to go after me with that kind of lawsuit that takes somebody out of a race who's leading in

this case, but even if the person wasn't leading. And I want to thank you all for being here. Do we have any questions? Yes.

REPORTER: The poll numbers are massive for you going into Super Tuesday. We have learned that a lot of people are antagonistic to politics, in general.

Seeing these legal case against you, they see what life was back under the Trump administration.

Do you think that's the key to pull some of these independent voters in this next election, seeing that cases are unfair, they have no bearing, and

also the poll numbers are likely for Trump?

TRUMP: It's such an interesting question because historically, a thing like what I've been going through would have hurt a political party or a

political candidate terrifically. You wouldn't even run. You wouldn't be able to run. You'd get out. This has happened over many years, many times.

In this case, the polls show that I'm much more popular than I was before weaponization. It's been weaponized like it's never been. This is for

third-world countries. This isn't for us. Biden ought to drop all of these things.


GOLODRYGA: Okay, I don't want to take too much time in trying to summarize everything that we heard there from Donald Trump because it was quite a lot

and it covered a lot of ground. I do want to bring in Attorney Misty Marris to talk about some of the legal issues that he touched upon.

And Misty, he started by praising the Supreme Court decision that would allow him to stay on the ballot in Colorado, though he did say that an

opponent would like to have it not be that way, that Biden somehow brought this case. That is just not true. The case was brought by six Colorado


But he quickly turned the conversation to what we are expecting to be a much more significant decision by the Supreme Court, and that is one of

presidential immunity. The former President was granted a win just in the fact that this will delay whatever trial may happen if, in fact, they do

rule that a President is not immune from any liability and any legal action.

That having been said, if you could break down what you heard from him, because it seems like his interpretation of the risks at hand, if the

Supreme Court does not rule in his favor on immunity, are not exactly accurate.

MARRIS: Yeah, I mean, there was so much in there. That was a great synopsis. I have so many notes. But let's talk about what we heard. So,

first of all, of course, he spoke about today's Supreme Court ruling. He praised it. It was certainly in his favor. However, the reasoning, he said

that the Supreme Court ruled that an opponent cannot take a leading other opponent off the ballot.

As we discussed previously, we know that the reasoning behind the decision, that's not it. The reasoning relates to state versus federal rights and who

has that responsibility between the state and federal government. So that's one piece of it.

To your point, the immunity case, that is a focus of what President Trump just, or former President Trump just spoke about. That immunity case is

really consequential. Arguments coming up on April 22nd, as you said, a win, because it's delaying any trial relating to January 6th.


And he's making what we've seen him make before, which is the public policy argument that if the Supreme Court finds a President is not immune for

official actions taken during his presidency, that -- then it opens up a whole can of worms and it creates an issue where the President won't have

any power to act.

Now, of course, there's so many different legal arguments in that immunity case. Again, we've heard him say that before. The arguments are different

than that when it comes down to the legal issues. The legal issues relate to what constitutes an official action.

It relates to whether or not impeachment is the proper process as to relate to any criminal conduct by a President. It relates to if a President can be

charged after the fact. There's so many different issues. So, that, again, was mischaracterized.

We also hear about Alvin Bragg, the upcoming case.


MARRIS: This is March 25th. So, that was also a significant component and he talks about how these are all interlinked.


MARRIS: Of course --


MARRIS: -- some of them are state actions. Some of them are federal actions.

GOLODRYGA: Yeah, I'm sorry, Missy. I'm going to have to cut you off because we are coming up against the clock for the end of the show. I do appreciate

your time. A very busy hour for us. Thank you so much for watching. I'm Bianna Golodryga. Amanpour is up next.