Subscribe to RealClear feed RealClear
Updated: 1 month 4 weeks ago

President And "Philosopher King" Nayib Bukele Celebrates Re-Election In El Salvador: "A Real Democracy"

Thu, 02/08/2024 - 20:05
Newly re-elected President of El Salvador Nayib Bukele posted this video of his victory speech, titled "A Real Democracy," on his Twitter account -- where his biography reads in English: "Philosopher King." "Today El Salvador has broken all the records of all the democracies in the history of the world," he said. "Since the dawn of democracy, no political project has ever won by the number of votes that we won with today. It's literally the greatest landslide in world history." "We haven't just won the president for a second time, receiving over 85% of the votes, we have also won the Legislative Assembly, taking 58 out of 60 seats... Likely more." "This will be the first time there is a single ruling party in a fully democratic system," he said. "El Salvador wants to trade with everyone, we want everyone to come and visit, we are throwing the doors open wide for citizens from all the countries of the world. We want you to visit and get to know us, we want to be your friend," he said. "But what we will not accept is to be your servants."

Pavlich: Biden Signed 92 Executive Orders, Stopped Any Interior Enforcement, A Wall, Sued Texas & Arizona

Thu, 02/08/2024 - 19:47
News Editor for Katie Pavlich joins Fox Across America With Jimmy Failla to explain why President Biden is the leader who deserves blame for the current influx of migrants crossing the U.S. Southern border illegally, not his predecessor. Let's not forget that President Biden signed 92 executive orders, stripping the system that they claim is broken, immigration system from any enforcement, any deportation efforts, interior enforcement. They stopped a border wall. They've sued Texas for putting up barbed wire and for putting buoys in the river to prevent illegal immigrants from coming over. They sued Arizona for trying to make their own border wall with shipping containers. They've done everything possible to open up the border. And let's not forget that Joe Biden, on the 2020 campaign trail, said that he was fine with millions more people coming into the country and that they should, in fact, come here. And lo and behold, here we are. So the question that you bring up and the point that's a good one is that, well politically, Democrats are trying to get this big bill passed so that they can get a victory. Well, Biden could do himself a real favor by just getting out his pen at his desk in the Oval Office and re-implementing, you know, even just half a dozen of these executive orders that he signed reversing these policies, and he them himself politically. Because it's not just Republicans who are complaining about this. It's not just independents who are really pissed about this. It's also Democrats who are demanding that the president do something about this. And so for him now to go out yesterday and say that the reason the border is not secure is because of Donald Trump, it's like a total joke. It's like, are you serious, bro? Like, come on, the guy who wants to deport everybody is not serious about securing the border? Like, give me a break.

Trump On Nikki Haley: "I Don't Know Why She Continues, I Think It's Bad For The Party"

Thu, 02/08/2024 - 19:44
Donald Trump commented Thursday on his final remaining Republican primary challenger, Nikki Haley: DONALD TRUMP: She did poorly no matter where she goes. The results aren't in yet from the Virgin Islands, but I know she's playing it hard. In Nevada, she lost to 'no name' by 40 points. So, I don't know why she continues. But she's a -- don't really care if she continues. I think it's bad for the party. I think it's actually bad for her too.

NSC Spokesman John Kirby: Don't Believe Anything Vladimir Putin Says In Tucker Carlson Interview

Thu, 02/08/2024 - 19:35
National Security Council spokesman John Kirby commented at Thursday's WH press briefing on Tucker Carlson's interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin, which is expected to be published tonight on Twitter. REPORTER: Do you have any concerns that Tucker Carlson's interview with Vladimir Putin could further erode support for Ukraine aid in the United States? ... Beyond just Congress, among the American people, many of whom watch Tucker Carlson's show and are inclined already to be skeptical of American support for Ukraine? Would hearing directly from Putin potentially erode that further? Not just in the halls of Congress but among the American people? JOHN KIRBY: The American people know well who is at fault here, and I think they know that there was no ground whatsoever for the invasion two years ago. He invaded a neighboring country without provocation. Ukraine wasn't a threat to anybody and the American people understand that. The American people understand what Ukraine is fighting for, and all they are asking for is our help, they're not asking for American boots on the ground. Again, I don't think the American people are going to be swayed by one single interview, and I don't think anybody that watched that interview, whatever is said, needs to remember you're listening to Vladimir Putin. And you shouldn't take at face value anything he ha to say.

CNN Panel Mocks Trump Response To Supreme Court Argument, Misses Relevant Portion

Thu, 02/08/2024 - 19:21
CNN's live reaction panel dipped in and out of President Trump's statement reacting to oral arguments today at the Supreme Court, managing to both make fun of him for not talking about the case and miss this part where he does talk about it, calling it a "beautiful process" and saying he "hopes democracy will continue in this country."

Trump: "I'm Leaving It Up To" The "Very Beautiful Process" At The #SupremeCourt

"Every one of these cases you see come out of the White House... It's #ElectionInterference and it is very sad."

- RCP Video (@rcpvideo) February 8, 2024 JAKE TAPPER, CNN: OK, I think we've gotten all the legal analysis we're going to get out of President Trump. GEORGE CONWAY: [chokes laughing] JAKE TAPPER: This was actually an opportunity for him to come out and say -- GEORGE CONWAY: No it's not because he wants to talk about himself. He doesn't want to talk about the Supreme Court... He just wants to talk about what's on his mind. JAMIE GANGEL: So can I just say someone didn't tell him that this sounded like good news for him today. Clearly. I mean, it wasn't just the rambling sort of campaign speech, but if he had simply listened to the analysis afterwards, he would know that it sounds like he's in good shape. JAKE TAPPER: Or George's point, that is that he doesn't even care. He just wants to change the subject back to whatever his -- ... JAKE TAPPER: I have to interrupt, I'm being told Donald Trump is talking about legal matters. At that point, they go back to Trump, missing the first 1 minute and 15 seconds of the tweeted video above where Trump comments on the case.

Victor Davis Hanson: Senate Republicans Walked Right Into Democrat's Trap On "Amnesty Bill"

Thu, 02/08/2024 - 19:15
On 'Hannity,' Victor Davis Hanson explained Democrats' strategy on immigration and Republicans' actions over border security: VICTOR DAVIS HANSON: They all wear. Joe Biden, the mayor, the governor, they all felt that open borders give them new constituencies, and they called everyone racist or xenophobic who wanted a secure border. They said 'oh You believe in the great replacement theory.' They are writing books called 'The new democratic majority,' or 'Demography is destiny.' On the one hand, they want all these people to come in but now immigration with crime and the economy are the three chief issues and they are all against their interests. What do they do? They don't want to shut the border. They want the constituents but they will lose the election. If they keep things going. So they try to blame the Republicans and say you did it because you didn't give us a competence of amnesty bill that would facilitate and make more orderly illegal immigration. And that's what they want. I can't believe some Republicans walked right into it, and for a while were fooled, but all they have to do, they don't need new money, they don't need new laws. All they have to do is go back and look at the 4-year war that Donald Trump waged and finally won back against liberal courts and liberal congresspeople. He stopped to catch and release, started on the new fence, he job owned Mexico and force them to behave and he made refugees apply in their home country. Guess what? By the end of his tenure there was a paradigm that would give you almost no illegal immigration. As soon as Joe Biden came on, he bragged about blowing it up. So did Eric Adams. Remember you in August of 2022, he was greeting with water bottles the migrants and said that this is a sanctuary city. So they got what they wanted. They always thought they would never be subject to the ramifications of their own ideology, that it would fall on border state governors and mayors, and maybe change the demographics of these red states blue. That's what they thought, but the chickens, so to speak, came home to roost.

Full Replay: WH Thursday Press Briefing With John Kirby And Karine Jean-Pierre

Thu, 02/08/2024 - 18:57
NSC spokesman John Kirby and WH press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre will brief reporters around 2:00 p.m. on Thursday.

MSNBC's Andrew Weissmann: "Clearly Five Votes, If Not Nine" Against Colorado In Trump Ballot Access Case

Thu, 02/08/2024 - 18:55
Former federal prosecutor and MSNBC legal analyst Andrew Weissmann said that based on what he heard today during oral arguments at the Supreme Court over Colorado's attempt to block Donald Trump from the presidential ballot, he expects ANDREW WEISSMANN: My takeaway from this is if you are counting the votes, remember, Justice O'Connor famously said, "What's it like to be on the Supreme Court? It's about counting to five." Here there are clearly five votes, if not nine votes that are going to reverse this case. The point that you made about ambiguity was raised by various justices, meaning that if it's not clear, shouldn't that favor having somebody being allowed to run and thus our ability to vote for that person? There was a lot of concern about having a state have the power to interfere with a federal election. It's not a state interfering with a state election. Should they really be able to weigh in on this? And then there was an interesting sort of across different Justices -- Ketanji Brown Jackson, Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Thomas, who was very active in this oral argument -- talking about the history of this amendment, talking about how it really dealt with the Confederacy and the concern about Confederates burrowing in to former Confederate states and influencing federal elections. And so it would be anomalous, it would be ironic to suddenly say, oh, we should allow states to take this on. It's a reason to have federal jurisdiction here, not state jurisdiction. My big takeaway is this is, I think, going to be a win for Donald Trump and a loss for Colorado.

AOC: Immigration Writ Large Is Yielding Enormous Economic Benefits To U.S., More People To Take Care Of Boomers

Thu, 02/08/2024 - 18:53
MSNBC's 'All In With Chris Hayes,' host Chris Hayes spoke with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) to discuss the failed impeachment of Homeland Security Secretary Mayorkas, the state of the House GOP leadership, the Israel-Hamas war. CHRIS HAYES:One of the challenges President Joe Biden faces in our current information environment and a Donald Trump media environment, in particular, is how to communicate just how much this administration, Democrats in Congress have actually gotten done. It's been a lot. For example, the last two years have been the most productive years for U.S. climate efforts ever. We are still not on trajectory to meet our Paris climate targets, but, for the first time, it actually seems like we have a shot at making it, almost entirely thanks to the Inflation Reduction Act passed without a single Republican vote. One of the people who first championed the early version of the climate plan, that is the Green New Deal, is Congresswoman Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, Democrat of New York, and she joins me now. Congresswoman, it's great to have you on. I -- one of the things that I encounter, I think particularly in social media-dominated spaces that -- where most sort of people under 30 get their news, is there's a kind of really intense doomerism and kind of negativity that just sort of comes with the media, right, more than anything. But I think it shapes people's views of politics. And when I tell people that, like, emissions are setting all-time lows, like, solar deployments setting all-time highs, like, people don't know that we have actually kind of had a pretty good few years on climate stuff. REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ (D-NY): Yes, it seems like -- it almost feels like when you remind folks of that they think you're being a buzzkill for the buzzkills. (LAUGHTER) HAYES: Right. OCASIO-CORTEZ: But it is important for us to communicate that we are winning. And this isn't just about a political context. This isn't even about cheerleading the president, although his leadership and willingness to work and make climate a priority is important to note. But this is really about a story of people's movements winning. This is about front-line activists winning. This is about young people, like Sunrise Movement bird-dogging senators, and making this issue front and center and completely politically unforgettable and politically urgent that we passed the largest U.S. federal climate investment in American history. And that has translated already to nearly a quarter-million jobs that have already been created of nine million jobs that are estimated to be created in the next several years. HAYES: I got to ask you about just the Hill the last few days, because it really has been crazy and weird, and just what you make of the Mayorkas impeachment and the fact that they're -- it's the first attempt to impeach a Cabinet secretary in 150 years, and they miscounted the votes, and they're going to try again on Tuesday. OCASIO-CORTEZ: I mean, I -- let's just call a spade a spade here. Republicans are dealing with not their first-choice speaker, not their second-choice speaker, not their third-choice speaker. HAYES: Fair. Fair. OCASIO-CORTEZ: They're dealing with the speaker that they could get and that they could agree on. And that means an individual that does not have experience in party leadership, that is a relative newcomer when it comes to the tenure of member that you're used to seeing when they typically get the speaker's gavel. And that means that the experience in vote-counting is not quite up to the standard that we usually see in a speakership. You're also dealing with the fact that this is an impeachment without merit. Secretary Mayorkas has demonstrated no -- there is absolutely no evidence for an impeachable offense. It is completely politicized. It imperils the Republicans' own swing district members to force a vote on something so clearly craven and without merit, that I think you see what happened last night, all of that coming together. And the fact that they think that Democrats owe it to Republicans to give them their counts, their -- our attendance counts... (LAUGHTER) HAYES: Yes. OCASIO-CORTEZ: ... is laughable. HAYES: Yes. OCASIO-CORTEZ: It really speaks to the fact that you're working with people who are not used to being in this chamber. HAYES: Yes, they were mad that -- they were mad that know them told them that Al Green was going to come, like, wheeling back in scrubs... (LAUGHTER) HAYES: ... from abdominal surgery. Like, you should have given them a heads-up on that. OCASIO-CORTEZ: I mean, if you didn't expect Al Green to be doing that, then you don't know who Al -- Reverend and Representative Al Green is. (LAUGHTER) HAYES: That's... OCASIO-CORTEZ: He will do that. HAYES: He will do it, as demonstrated yesterday. It's a good point. I want to ask a question about something the Congressional Budget Office -- and you tweeted this, because I have been maddened by the discussion of immigrants, which, basically, I feel like the... OCASIO-CORTEZ: Yes. HAYES: ... entire discussion is, they're coming to take your stuff. There's like only seven slices of pizza in America, and everyone that comes is going to take one of those slices, and you're not going to have any. And the Congressional Budget Office basically said today, look, we're readjusting our projection of GDP growth up by $7 trillion. And, also, we're reading for you that U.S. government money to reduce the deficit by a trillion because of immigration, higher net immigration. And you tweeted that being, like, guys, we're not talking at all about the net positives immigrants bring to this country. OCASIO-CORTEZ: Absolutely. It is actually completely nonsensical that we do not talk about the enormous blessing, economic blessing that immigrants and immigration represents the United States of America. And a lot of folks sometimes think that this is just a certain kind of immigrant, right, like college-educated or technical visas. All immigrants that we're seeing -- this is the CBO estimate. HAYES: Yes. OCASIO-CORTEZ: Immigration writ large is yielding enormous economic benefits to the United States. And let's bring this out even finer. If you are a caregiver, if you are a Baby Boomer, if you are someone that cares for someone who is aging, we currently do not have the economic or social structural capacity to take care of our seniors. HAYES: Yes. OCASIO-CORTEZ: And we will increasingly not have that if we -- quote, unquote -- "lock up" our border and shut down -- shut down immigration. In fact, the thing that has distinguished U.S. economic performance from other countries like Japan or other developed economies is the fact that our pro-immigration policies actually allow us to continue in our economic growth, whereas similar countries with anti- or more kind of closed-border policies experience economic stagnation when they submit themselves to this xenophobic kind of border panic... HAYES: Yes. OCASIO-CORTEZ: ... narrative that FOX News, frankly, seeks to peddle and instill in so many people. HAYES: Quickly, in the last 20 seconds, I know you are no on the supplemental for Israel, barring some sort of strings attached on that aid. You have said that we're seeing Gaza slaughter on a speech yesterday on the floor. How many Democrats are in that position as you? Do you have a -- is there a rough count of how many no's there are in the caucus? OCASIO-CORTEZ: What I will say is that the grassroots activism around a bilateral cease-fire is working. And there are far more members than perhaps may be publicly visible that have a lot of trepidation around voting for an aid -- for an aid package that contains, A, no humanitarian aid. And, B, I think we are crossing the Rubicon here in just no-holds-barred, completely unconditional aid to the Israeli government. HAYES: Yes. OCASIO-CORTEZ: We have leaky laws on the books that prevent U.S. aid from funding gross human rights violations. And we, I think, are seeing a level of depravity in Gaza that is becoming morally untenable to support. HAYES: Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, thank you very much.

Turley: Eight Justices Appear Ready To Rule Against Colorado On Trump Ballot Access, Sotomayor May Be "Outlier"

Thu, 02/08/2024 - 18:42
GWU law professor and FOX News talker Jonathan Turley says based on what he heard today during oral arguments at the Supreme Court over Colorado's attempt to block Donald Trump from the presidential ballot, he expects at least eight members of the Court to rule in Trump's favor. JONATHAN TURLEY: Well, first of all, what's interesting about this case is that Colorado was the outlier. All the other cases either suspended consideration or rejected this on different grounds. There were three basic questions and many of them decided on three different grounds. So it's interesting going to the court to see which of these areas they can find unanimity or near-unanimity. I think John Roberts was probably listening carefully to Jackson. Many of us thought Jackson would be the toughest sell for Roberts. It appears maybe Sotomayor may be the tougher sell. But there is clearly a foundation here for unanimity. You could not help but feeling some sympathy for [Denver lawyer] Murray, it's like "West Side Story," when you show up and find out none of your sharks are there, everyone is a jet. And he did the best he could, you know, but he was looking very lonely at points and I thought he did a very good job. I thought [Trump attorney] Mitchell did an outstanding job and you know, I think that overall, the argument was really solid. I think at this point if he was -- if you were to take a bet you would say eight of the justices seemed to be prepared to rule against Colorado. Sotomayor is the outlier in terms of the issues. It's clear again they are not looking at arguing whether this was an insurrection, even though some of the justices were concerned about the lack of due process afforded to the president. I think the big takeaway of this is that Justice Jackson seems to want the court to focus on the threshold question of coverage. Most of the questions went to whether this is enforced automatically without any act of Congress. So that's going to be the interesting dynamic for the conference which is likely to occur tomorrow.

Trump: "I'm Leaving It Up To" The "Very Beautiful Process" At The Supreme Court

Thu, 02/08/2024 - 18:16
Former President Trump commented on oral arguments this morning at the Supreme Court about whether he will be eligible for the presidential ballot in Colorado, saying he enjoyed watching the "beautiful process." "The Supreme Court today, I thought it was a very beautiful process. I hope that democracy in this country will continue...Every one of these cases you see comes out of the White House, it comes out of Biden. It's election interference," Trump said from Mar-a-Lago. "Can you take the person that's leading everywhere and say, 'Hey, we're not going to let you run?' ... I think that's pretty tough to do, but I'm leaving it up to the Supreme Court."

Full Replay/Highlights: Supreme Court Oral Argument On President Trump's Colorado Ballot Eligibility

Thu, 02/08/2024 - 18:12
Listen to the full replay of Thursday's Supreme Court oral arguments over whether Donald Trump can remain on the ballot in Colorado, where the state's Supreme Court ruled that he violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment by committing an "insurrection." In arguments lasting beyond 90 minutes, both conservative and liberal justices raised questions of whether Trump can or should be disqualified because of his efforts to challenge his loss in the 2020 election, resulting in the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol. This page will be updated with highlight clips, transcripts and more info as the arguments continue.

CLIP: Jonathan Mitchell, attorney for former President Donald Trump, delivers his opening argument by saying the Colorado Supreme Court's decision disqualifying Mr. Trump on the primary ballot is "wrong" for "numerous, independent reasons."

- CSPAN (@cspan) February 8, 2024

Opening Statement from Colorado Solicitor General Shannon Stevenson

- CSPAN (@cspan) February 8, 2024

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas EVICERATES Colorado attorney Jason Murray during Donald Trump's 14th Amendment hearing at SCOTUS.

Thomas - "What are the examples?"

Murray - Provides no examples.

Thomas - "Do you have any examples of this?"

Murray - Still no examples.

- Conservative Brief (@ConservBrief) February 8, 2024

Chief Justice Roberts: "Insurrection is a broad, broad term..."

- CSPAN (@cspan) February 8, 2024

Jason Murray to Justice Jackson: "If this court concludes that Colorado did not have the authority to exclude President Trump from the presidential ballot on procedural grounds I think this case would be done, but I think it could come back with a vengeance."

- CSPAN (@cspan) February 8, 2024

Justices ask if military officers could refuse orders from a president who engaged in insurrection.

Justice Gorsuch hypothetical: "He's disqualified from the moment he committed an insurrection...what would compel a lower official to obey an order from that individual?"

- CSPAN (@cspan) February 8, 2024

Justice Kagan: "The question that you have to confront is why a single state should decide who gets to be President of the United States."

- CSPAN (@cspan) February 8, 2024

Justice Jackson: "So, your point is that a chaotic effort to overthrow the government is not an insurrection?"

Jonathan Mitchell: "We didn't conceded that it's an effort to overthrow the government either...this was a a riot. It was not an insurrection."

- CSPAN (@cspan) February 8, 2024

This is just a bloodbath.

Justice Gorsuch spends two minutes slapping around Colorado's lawyer.

You almost gotta feel bad for the guy.

- Greg Price (@greg_price11) February 8, 2024

Trump Attorney: If Colorado Ruling Is Allowed To Stand We're Not Going To Have A Presidency

Thu, 02/08/2024 - 16:48
Trump attorney Boris Epshteyn on Tuesday talked to Steve Bannon about the Colorado decision to strip Donald Trump off the ballot: "If this ruling is allowed to stand we're not going to have a presidency in this country because every president is going to be absolutely debilitated because they're going to be worried that their political opponents are going to wrongfully attack them and wrongfully indict them just as has happened with President Trump. So this decision cannot stand, President Trump and his team are going to fight this decision and it was fully and absolutely expected and now it's on to the next steps in order to make sure that the presidency is safe and America is safe."

Chris Hayes: Trump's Lawyers Not Making "Good-Faith Arguments" For Why He Shouldn't Be Disqualified From Ballot

Thu, 02/08/2024 - 16:44
MSNBC host Chris Hayes on Wednesday reacted to the Supreme Court hearing arguments to overturn the Colorado Supreme Court decision to strip Donald Trump from the ballot. CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST: Good evening, and welcome to a special hour of coverage on Donald Trump and his ballot -- battle to stay on the ballot. I'm Chris Hayes. Joy has the night off. And I'm a little over -- in a little over 12 hours from now, the Supreme Court of the United States of America will hear arguments as to whether Donald Trump is ineligible to be on the ballot, based on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Now, this case will have enormous repercussions for the election this year and also for the future of American democracy. It is arguably the most important election case to reach the Supreme Court since Bush v. Gore nearly a quarter-century ago. The question before the court is pretty simple actually. Does Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which bars -- quote -- "an officer of the United States" who -- quote -- "engaged in insurrection from holding public office" actually apply to the man who incited the January 6 riot, who tried to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power for the first time since the Civil War? The Colorado state Supreme Court has already ruled that, yes, Trump should be barred from the ballot in that state based on the insurrection that he clearly engaged in -- quote -- "President Trump is disqualified from holding the office of president under Section 3. Because he is disqualified, it would be a wrongful act under the Election Code for the secretary to list him as a candidate on the presidential primary ballot." So, unlike in Trump's federal January 6 trial, the court in Colorado here already found that Trump did engage in insurrection. There was a trial, a state court trial, actually, at the civil level to find it out, and pursuant to that, after several appeals at the top of the state court system in Colorado, that he should be barred from the presidency as a result. That's not the only state that has done this. The secretary of state in Maine, through a different process -- this wasn't a trial, this was a determination made by the secretary of state -- also came to a similar conclusion. And those are not the only states considering this. About a dozen other states are currently weighing the same question in some form or another. Should Trump be barred from the presidency because he supported insurrection? So, now it is up to the 6-3 Supreme Court, three of whom were appointed by Trump himself, to give the final word. We actually got a preview of what some of the arguments before the Supreme Court might look like when this case was argued in Colorado late last year. Some of those arguments focused on the intentions of the 14th Amendment, which was first drafted in response to the aftermath of the Civil War, with so-called Radical Republicans in Congress -- that's a contingent of anti-slavery lawmakers committed to instituting genuine multiracial democracy in America -- who were working to ensure that those who had taken up arms against the union, who had sought to destroy the government, should never be allowed to serve in it again. Trump's lawyers did not seem to take it that way, however. One of them argued -- this was a strange moment -- that the former president of the Confederacy himself, Jefferson Davis, would still be eligible to serve as president of the United States under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MELISSA HART, COLORADO SUPREME COURT JUSTICE: Jefferson Davis won -- ran a while ago, and the electors who were not themselves insurrectionists chose to put him into the presidency, that would be fine under Section 3, and that would be consistent with the purposes of Section 3? SCOTT GESSLER, FORMER COLORADO SECRETARY OF STATE: That would be the rule of democracy in work. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Jefferson Davis, the chief insurrectionist, the greatest traitor to this country in history, perhaps. We should note that Jefferson Davis himself believed at the time that Section 3 applied to him. The fact that he was already disqualified from office under the 14th Amendment was part of his argument, again, back then as to why he should not be tried for treason after he lost the Civil War. But I should say, I'm not entirely sure Trump's lawyers are really making good-faith arguments. They're just sort of throwing out anything they can, considering they also seem to waffle on the question of whether or not former President Barack Obama, twice elected to be president, could be disqualified from the ballot under the text of the 22nd Amendment, which clearly states a president can only serve two terms. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MARIA E. BERKENKOTTER, COLORADO SUPREME COURT JUSTICE: Could the Democratic Party put President Obama up for -- on the primary ballot? Could that happen? GESSLER: I haven't done a full analysis of that particular provision, Your Honor. I'm really sort of focused more on Section 3. But could they do it? Conceivably. I think it's an open question. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: I mean, to be clear, I don't think it's an open question. The 22nd Amendment quite clearly forecloses the possibility of a third term. If a third term is foreclosed, he can't be on the ballot, because he can't serve. Why would he be there? But that's the caliber of argument that we have been dealing with here. Trump's team are also trying to parse the question of who exactly qualifies as what the constitutional provision calls an officer of the law. They argued the term doesn't actually apply to the president himself, and, therefore, the 14th Amendment cannot restrain the ex-president. Now, interestingly, a lower court actually agreed with that determination. The first level of appeals in the Colorado court agreed with that before, being overruled by the state Supreme Court of Colorado. But one of the lawyers trying to keep Trump off the ballot offered this argument for why it is not legally sound. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JASON MURRAY, PLAINTIFFS' ATTORNEY: The Constitution tells us over and over that the presidency is an office, and that the person who holds it swears an oath of office before assuming the execution of his office. And the plain meaning of an officer is just one who holds an office. So we think the text here is very clear, that the history supports it, and certainly that the core purpose of the provision supports that reading as well. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Notice the wording there, the text, the history. It was drafted carefully. You see how he referred to the plain meaning of the language of the Constitution, likely a direct appeal to the so-called originalist conservatives, not on the state Supreme Court of Colorado before who he was arguing, but on the Supreme Court of the United States, who tend to take the view, or at least say they take the view, that the Constitution should be interpreted only as it was understood at the time of the founding. Original public meaning, that's their sort of watchword. Notably, many of those same originalists on Supreme Court are happy to, it seems, ignore the truly radical intentions of the 14th Amendment, how it relates explicitly to both legacy of slavery and the treasonous insurrection that started the Civil War, which may be why it is notable that Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the newest member of that court, refuses to let them forget it. (BEGIN AUDIO CLIP) KETANJI BROWN JACKSON, U.S. SUPREME COURT ASSOCIATE JUSTICE: I understood that we looked at the history and traditions of the Constitution, at what the framers and the founders thought about. And when I drilled down to that level of analysis, it became clear to me that the framers themselves adopted the Equal Protection Clause, the 14th Amendment, the 15th Amendment in a race-conscious way. The entire point of the amendment was to secure rights of the freed former slaves. The legislator who introduced that amendment said that -- quote -- "Unless the Constitution should restrain them, those states will all, I fear, keep up this discrimination and crush to death the hated freed men." That's not a race-neutral or race-blind idea. (END AUDIO CLIP) HAYES: So, that argument, this sort of reconstruction original Ketanji Brown Jackson has made her -- made a name for, may not resonate with the court's conservative majority. I mean, it's difficult to envision a scenario in which they uphold Colorado's decision, although I should say the arguments are not -- Trump's arguments are weaker than I thought they would be a month before. But if there ever were time to invoke Section 3, this is it. That argument deserves to be heard publicly tomorrow. We will do exactly that.

Amanpour on Tucker Carlson's Interview With Putin: "We Will Keep Trying Our Best To Actually Commit Journalism"

Thu, 02/08/2024 - 02:57
CNN's Christiane Amanpour on Wednesday reacted to news of Tucker Carlson's upcoming interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin. "I think that Tucker Carlson, as you know, has said over the years, many, many things that are very supportive of Vladimir Putin, even after the annexation of Crimea, suggested the Putin was never a threat to the United States or to US interests, has called Zelenskyy, you know, an authoritarian and a dictator, worse than -- you know, is as bad as Lenin, et cetera," Amanpour said. "So, you know, this stuff just doesn't hold up. Why he's doing this interview now, obviously for the Kremlin, it makes sense if they want to talk." "It's a friendly -- it's a friendly voice, but we will keep trying our best to actually commit journalism," Amanpour added. HARLOW: Cristiane, moving to Russia and Vladimir Putin, Tucker Carlson has now interviewed Vladimir Putin. He made an inaccurate claim that no other Western journalist has bothered to try to interview Vladimir Putin. What do people need to know ahead of this interview being released? AMANPOUR: Well, you know, of course, that is so ridiculous that even Vladimir Putin's press spokesman -- HARLOW: Right. AMANPOUR: Dmitry Peskov, a very powerful man in the Kremlin, close associate of Putin said that that wasn't true, because he knows that all of us have been, you know, knocking down his door to try to get such an interview. But he said, well, maybe, maybe Carlson didn't know that. You know, that's the sort of nonsense that Carlson is trying to justify this interview. But let me just read for you what some -- you know, what some Russian journalists have said, if I can find that, in fact, I will look for it. Basically, somebody like Yevgenia Albats, who is a prominent journalist, has been very angry at this notion that only Carlson can interview Putin. She said, "Unbelievable. I'm like hundreds of Russian journalists who've had to go into exile to keep reporting about the Kremlin's war against Ukraine. The alternative was to go to jail." And then she adds a little bit of an expletive against Tucker's position there. But I think what's really important to know is Tucker Carlson suggests that the American people, the rest of the West don't understand Putin, don't understand the Russian military action, the war, the invasion. Well, again, that's clearly untrue, because if you saw polls in the United States and around the world, even at the UN, everybody understood that this was an illegal invasion of a democratic and sovereign state and the polls were very, very much -- and these are people, not journalists, for the defense of Ukraine and the values it is upholding for all of us, and that is a fact. Now, obviously, the longer it goes, the more difficult it is to keep up that support, particularly as you've just been reporting, the unbelievable shenanigans that are going on in the US Congress that simply will not send support to a country that is trying to fight not just for its values, but for all of our security. So I think that Tucker Carlson, as you know, has said over the years, many, many things that are very supportive of Vladimir Putin, even after the annexation of Crimea, suggested the Putin was never a threat to the United States or to US interests, has called Zelenskyy, you know, an authoritarian and a dictator, worse than -- you know, is as bad as Lenin, et cetera. So, you know, this stuff just doesn't hold up. Why he's doing this interview now, obviously for the Kremlin, it makes sense if they want to talk. It's a friendly -- it's a friendly voice, but we will keep trying our best to actually commit journalism.

Axelrod: "Very, Very Disruptive" If The Supreme Court Upholds Colorado Decision

Thu, 02/08/2024 - 02:37
CNN contributor and Democratic political strategist David Axelrod warned on Wednesday it would be "very, very disruptive" if the Supreme Court decides to uphold the Colorado Supreme Court decision to strike former President Donald Trump from the country. "I'm trying to imagine what it would be like if the Supreme Court said we're removing the front-running Republican candidate from the ballot and essentially saying to the American people, you won't have the opportunity to vote for him," Axelrod told Burnett. "And I think it would be very, very disruptive in this country. I think it will create a huge reaction and that worries me. It worries me partly because of Donald Trump." "There's so much cynicism about our institutions already," Axelrod continued. "And the strength of our democracy are these institutions. You can argue that's why you have to go the way the Colorado court suggests. But I think in the minds of many voters, this would be a subversion. And it would draw very strong reaction." ERIN BURNETT, CNN: They're calm, they're confident but I know you warned this case could tear the country apart. Those are the exact words you used. You don't use them lightly. Why do you feel so strongly? DAVID AXELROD, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: First of all, let me preface it by saying it is stunning that three years after President Trump left the Capitol in disgrace having sold this lie that the election h had been stolen from him, having incited people to storm the Capitol that he is in the position he's in and we're in the position we're in. I'm not here as an apologist for Donald Trump and I'm certainly not here as a lawyer, but I'm sure that one of the things the Supreme Court has to consider is what is the impact of a decision like that? You know, there are a myriad legal questions that they are going to consider tomorrow. Some will undoubtedly offer off-ramps if they want an off-ramp but I'm trying to imagine what it would be like if the Supreme Court said we're removing the front-running Republican candidate from the ballot and essentially saying to the American people, you won't have the opportunity to vote for him. And I think it would be very, very disruptive in this country. I think it will create a huge reaction and that worries me. It worries me partly because of Donald Trump. There's so much cynicism about our institutions already. And the strength of our democracy are these institutions. You can argue that's why you have to go the way the Colorado court suggests. But I think in the minds of many voters, this would be a subversion. And it would draw very strong reaction.

Charles Payne: The American Dream Was Always About Waiting Your Turn, Now People Want The Gold Watch On Day One

Thu, 02/08/2024 - 02:25
FOX Business host Charles Payne appeared on FOX News Channel's 'American Reports' on Wednesday to talk about the economy. "We are living in the moment because we have no faith in the country," Payne said to co-host Sandra Smith. "That's the exact opposite of a strong economy." SANDRA SMITH, FOX NEWS: We featured some of these TikTok videos where they cling their Louis Vuitton over the shoulder and say, "I'm living with my parents, I'm deep in credit card debt, I have student loan debt, but I don't care. I deserve this or whatever it is." But at the same time, they are complaining about high prices and the cost of living. So there is this changing psychology as well. CHARLES PAYNE, FOX BUSINESS: There's a psychology and listen, last year, Bernard Arnault became the richest person in the world. He's the chairman of Louis Vuitton and that's in part because we're spending mindlessly. You walk into a Louis Vuitton store and you have people who are racking up stuff and then after that, they go home to a basement somewhere, to a project somewhere, to a trailer park somewhere, you know. And it's just absolutely nuts and so it's become ironically -- sadly to be quite frank with you -- culture. Listen, the American dream was always about waiting your turn. You know, when you started the job, you didn't get the gold watch on the first day, you got the gold watch on the last day. A lot of these folks want the gold watch on day one. And they talk about their parents or their grandparents and they say, "Well my grandmother bought a house for 30 grand and now it's a $5 million house." Yeah, it took time, right? It just takes more time than it has in the past. But the American dream is within reach for those people who want to work hard. The formula has not changed.

Jesse Kelly: It's Important That Other GOP Senators See Sen. Lankford Destroyed For The Border Bill

Thu, 02/08/2024 - 02:08
Sen. James Lankford (R-OK) on the Senate floor responded to Jesse Kelly, a host for 'The First' network, calling for the end of his political career over the proposed Senate border bill. Kelly reacted on the Wednesday episode of his show. "It's important for Senator Lankford have his entire professional life destroyed," Kelly said. "And you know why it is important? It's not just because of the unending amount of malice I have in my heart towards cowardice like that. It's important that the other GOP Senators see Lankford destroyed. They must look at what happens when you betray us like this, and they must be afraid of us. So, Oklahoma, it's time to giddy up. It's time to get a real primary going. It's time to run James Lankford out of GOP politics so every other flat in the front Senator like him looks on in horror as his career goes down the tubes and worries for themselves. It is time to come for James Lankford. Senator, now it's on."

Brit Hume: Anti-Trump Money Keeping Nikki Haley Afloat, But The Non-Trump Lane Of GOP Is Narrow

Thu, 02/08/2024 - 01:50
FOX News contributor Brit Hume on Nikki Haley and the Republican primary and the failed attempt at an immigration and border deal in the Senate. BRET BAIER: As we head towards South Carolina, obviously Nikki Haley saying she is going to fight on there. It's her home state. You look at the RealClearPolitics average of polls, she's trailing significantly in her home state. She's trailing in other polls, if you look at other polls, in really every big state and every state on Super Tuesday. So even though she is having success raising money what do you think the path is here? BRIT HUME: Well, it would be hard to identify a path for her if she can't do any better than she now appears to be doing in South Carolina, especially after this embarrassment in Nevada. I think, you know, what is more likely than anything to happen is she will either wait to see if the polls change between now and South Carolina and if they don't, she might not even want to still be a candidate when the ballots are counted because it would be terribly embarrassing to her to suffer some massive defeat in her home state. Even though she does a little better after South Carolina, she would have to really rally some to do well enough to stay in after that. So, if it's respectable, she still might not go on. Candidates tend to stay in as long as have money. She appears to have money. So she might be with us for a while but I can't see a path. BAIER: Are there risks, the downside politically if she stays in too long even though she has money? HUME: Well, maybe. But I think, you know, she can't go on forever. The money will dry up in a hurry if it's hopeless. There is a lot of anti-Trump money out there that is keeping her afloat. And people genuinely admire her. She is a competent candidate. There is no doubt about that. She is running in the non-Trump lane of the Republican party and the problem with that is, the non-Trump lane of the Republican party is pretty narrow. BAIER: Let's turn to immigration. You saw President Biden the other day at the White House repeatedly say the reason this bill is going down is because of former President Trump and if there are more problems at the border it's because of former President Donald Trump. What about that kind of rhetorical jujitsu and how this is going to play? HUME: Well, I suppose it's worth a try for him and his camp. But people have been living with this situation on the border now for some years and he has been responsible and he hasn't done what he could have done. And most people, I think, understand that. I think this failure of this immigration bill was a train wreck, really showing how dysfunctional the situation is in Congress. A function, I think Bret mostly of the fact that extremely narrow margins in both Houses. So you can only lose a few members for the bill to go down. In the House, that bill was denounced by immigration hawks as being grossly insufficient although it contained sufficiently numerous concessions from reluctant Democrats that the Border Patrol Union endorsed it and they are the people that have to go out and enforce those laws every day and they say it was a good bill. I don't think it was so much it was a bad bill. It's there is no margin for error in either House and nobody is going to step up in an election year and vote for a bill that might prove unpopular to enough of their constituents to cause them trouble. BAIER: We see how tenuous the leadership is in the House and how that narrow that majority is for Speaker Johnson. But are we now seeing maybe a collapse of what we had seen as Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell really being the maestro behind the scenes on the minority on the Senate side. Maybe it's more tenuous than it has been. HUME: I think that's probably true. Bret. I still think he retains the support of the majority of his caucus. When Ted Cruz comes out with other some other Senators to say resign he only has a handful of Republican Senators standing with him. It's not entirely clear how they all feel about it anyway. Being opposed by Ted Cruz is not proved a path to leaving your office so far. But, it could mount. And he clearly is not strong and well and robust as he used to be, and that doesn't help either. Yeah, is he in some difficulty. So far not critical but some.