Erin Burnett OutFront Aired February 08, 2024 - 19:00 ET THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. …So a lot of what I think we'll see tonight is Joe Biden trying to reset that conversation and to John King's point, you know, if there -- if the voter sees this as some kind of equivalent, then he, Joe Biden's got to find a way, that Democrats have to find a way to make it not so to make Donald Trump's crimes or potential crimes greater than anything that Joe Biden did. But the problem -- again, the problem is that this language about his abilities is so baked in to Democrats as was said before -- the Democrats and independent, let alone Republicans, that he's got to be able to go out and just talk about other issues that people care about, in places where they where they're responsive. BURNETT: And, John, having -- you know, you've seen him over many years in many roles, but you haven't walking into a room here right now, at a podium in Washington, right. But he's really addressing the American people. He's using to do it, 7:45 p.m., now it's 7:50. So, any minute here. They're going to be reporters in the room. So it is going to have a live audience, better for him than being in a room just with a prompt or certainly he does better with people around him. I've seen that doing a town hall with him. But to make this that quick, are they writing a speech? They're putting in probably, what do you think is actually going on here because they do know and the problem is when everyone's looking at you, to do something specifically wrong, that's sometimes when you make the mistake because you're so focused on not making the mistake, right? Anybody can relate to that. KING: So it is -- it's a fascinating moment because you're right all about that. And one of the constant push backs you get from team Biden and they have some credibility on this argument, is there you go again, right? Remember he lost the first three contests in 2020, everybody says goodbye. Joe Biden shouldn't have run. This is an embarrassing the way it go out. He's the president of the United States. You're going to hear him in just a couple of minute. So their team says, Washington always gets it wrong. The part about this that I think it's a little bit different that I believe they're coming to understand is that he's the incumbent president now, so they're trying to make this all about Donald Trump. You can't make it all about Donald Trump when you're the incumbent president. And so to the point about, I say vitality, not age one of the interesting things when you travel and you try to bring up, say, better economic numbers or inflation is a little bit better. What about the president's leadership on Ukraine. Even if you disagree with sending money to Ukraine, the president United States, has done a remarkable job keeping the international coalition together for two plus years now. When you bring that up with people, some of them don't even want to entertain the conversation. Even people who maybe voted for Joe Biden, because they don't take us up to the job. So they don't want to talk about his qualifications, so they don't want to talk about his record. They won't even consider it because essentially he walked into the interview room, they decided was enough for the job, so nothing else matters. I think there's sort of a threshold issue about performance that he must answer, that he must reverse the opinion or at least bend the opinion of a lot of people out there get them to pay attention to the bullet points on his resume. They first have to believe the top line that he believes there. BURNETT: But, John, I will just follow with you on this is one of the things that seems to be challenging is some of the things that people are now putting on him as age are things that may have been exacerbated by age, but its also how he is, right? He's very open about how he is struggled in life, right, with a stutter. He is someone who often has gone down verbal cul-de-sacs and meandered into another story. That's part of who he is, that's his brand for the past 50 years. Right now, people see some of those things in a different light. How is he supposed to overcome that when that's actually kind of who he is? KING: I think the reason the way he has overcome it for 40-plus years is let people see it will see a lot of it, see a lot of it. So you realize some of it just is baked in, as you said. BURNETT: Yeah. KING: The stutter, God bless him. I mean, the man deserves a lot of credit for fighting through that in a very public way with a camera aimed at him every second of every day, for someone to go through that and put up with it. It takes a lot of courage and he just whether you're Democrat, Republican, independent, you people with hardships have to deal with hardships. He deserves a ton of credit for that. I first covered Joe Biden in Iowa in 1987. I was out there covering Governor Dukakis and went to other events. He has never been a great communicator, but he is good in small settings and he's a good small talker. And he puts you at ease if you're in a small group with him, he's never been great off the teleprompter and yes, it's clear that he's lost a couple of steps in that regard as anybody, that all would be. I think it's to be candid about that. I listened to a conversation with a doctor the other day. It just be candid about it. Right? You know, just -- here's where -- here's where I'm, yeah, this is a little harder, but look at this, look because this look at this. Point out the other things that you're doing. In this case, the specifics of this report were having this bigger conversation about Joe Biden and the age issue, and is he up to the job in the vitality, on the substance of this? He has to look people in the eye and part of it, to the conversation you're having at the table, part of it is to, like, makes you were wrong. [19:55:04] That's a hard thing for a lot of politicians to do. The American people give you a lot of grace if you say, as I always say, all the perfect people out there, raise your hands. Not a lot of hands go up, right? And so they give you a lot of grace if you actually say, wow, I screwed this up or, wow, I made mistakes. It's hard for many politicians to do that. I'm interested to see if the president does that tonight. BURNETT: All right. Let's go back to Kevin Liptak, who is at the White House. And Kevin, they had said 7:45. I mean, he often is running a little bit late, but obviously ten minutes laid off of that right now, what is the latest as you understand it. I know there are people, obviously all the other side of this camera right now looking at that podium -- the reporters in that room. LIPTAK: Certainly, they will be waiting for the president to walk in there any moment now to deliver his remarks and hopefully take their questions, but I do think it's important and when you talk to White House officials throughout but the course of the day, there is another message that I think that they will be trying to get across in that President Biden is trying to get across, because if you think about it, until 3:00 today when the special counsel report came out, this was essentially a terrible week for Republicans, particularly on Capitol Hill, sort of demonstrating the inability of the House Speaker Mike Johnson to corral that caucus, the collapse of the border bill, the failure to impeach the homeland security secretary. And I think that if President Biden comes out and says something that is not about the special counsel report, it could be about this attack turn the focus back on Republicans and back on President Trump. And if you think about what his imperative will be in the election over the coming nine months. It is to focus more on Trumps and to remind voters of the chaos that Trump has instilled in the country when he was an office himself and you are starting to see President Biden more and more do that in events at the White House and events, at fundraisers on the campaign trail for a person who is loath to mention Trump's name for the better part of his term so far, he is now naming him almost every day in almost every speech. And so as the president ways this special counsel report as he speaks against the backdrop of these findings in these quite damning revelations that her says about his memory. I think there is also this desire by the White House by President Biden to turn some of the focus on Republicans. And as has this national stage, primetime stage this evening, I wouldn't be surprised if he also brings that into the conversation, while he has that moment. BURNETT: No. Right, and, Kevin, I will say as everyone files into that room, do you have any sense of something like this which was announced so hastily, it looks like the remarks are now being put on the podium, what sort of what went on behind the scenes in these past hours for them to make a decision to do this and to do it with such little warning? LIPTAK: Yeah. And certainly, I think that there was always today the possibility that President Biden would come out and speak in this sort of format. And we heard him say earlier in the week that he would take questions so this has always been sort of lingering in the ether. I do think as that special counsel report was being digested, you heard outright anger from President Biden's aides really fuming about some of those revelations that her alleged about his the memory. And I think that all likely coalesced into the event that were seeing now. I think the message about Republicans as one that they are very eager to get out, and certainly throughout the course of this week, whether it was the failure on Tuesday to pass the bill that had the border money or border changes in addition to the Ukraine money to today when they're all please other developments on the Hill, there was this imperative, I think among President Biden's aides to get him behind a podium and to get him talking about some of these issues that certainly, there is always -- BURNETT: All right. Kevin, I will interrupt you. The president of the United States, Joe Biden, is now speaking. JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: -- I take your questions. As you know, the special counsel released his findings today about they're looking to my handling of classified documents. I was pleased to see he reached a firm conclusion that no charges should be brought against me in this case. This was an exhaustive investigation going back more than 40 years, even in the 1970s when I was still a new United States senator. The special counsel acknowledged I cooperated completely. I did not throw up any roadblocks. I sought no delays. In fact, I was so determined to give a special counsel what he needed, I went forward with a five-hour in-person, five-hour in-person interview over two days on October the 8th and 9th of last year. Even though Israel had just been attacked by Hamas on the seventh, and I was very occupied, was in the middle of handling and international crisis. I was especially pleased to see special counsel make clear the stark distinction in difference between this case and Mr. Trump's case. Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees Aired February 08, 2024 - 20:00 ET THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. Did Not Air. CNN Live Event/Special Aired February 08, 2024 - 20:00 ET THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. [20:00:00] JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The special counsel wrote and I quote: "Several material distinctions between Mr. Trump's case and Mr. Biden's are clear," continuing to quote, "Most notably, after given multiple chances to return classified documents, to avoid prosecution, Mr. Trump allegedly did the opposite. According to the indictment, he not only refused to return the documents for many months, he also obstructed justice by enlisting others to destroy evidence and then to lie about it." "In contrast," it went on to say, "Mr. Biden turned in classified documents to the National Archives and the Department of Justice, consented to the search of multiple locations, including his home, sat for a voluntary interview, and in other ways cooperated with the investigation." I've seen the headlines since the report was released about my willful retention of documents. This assertion is not only misleading, they're just plain wrong. On Page 215, if you had a chance, I know it's long -- it's a thick document -- on Page 215 in the report of the special counsel, found the exact opposite. Here's what he wrote: There is in fact a shortage of evidence that I willfully retained classified materials related to Afghanistan. On Page 12, the special counsel also wrote for another document, the decision to decline criminal charges was straightforward. The evidence suggests that Mr. Biden did not willfully retain these documents, the evidence also said, I did not willfully retain these documents. In addition, I know there's some attention paid to some language and report about my recollection of events. There's even reference that I don't remember when my son died. How the hell dare he raise that. Frankly, when I was asked the question, I thought to myself, it wasn't any of their damn business. Let me tell you something. Some of you have commented, I wear since the day he died, every single day, the rosary he got from Our Lady of -- Every Memorial Day, we hold a service remembering him, attended by friends and family and the people who loved him. I don't need anyone. I don't need anyone to remind me when he passed away, when he passed away. The simple truth is, I sat for five -- over two days of events, going back 40 years, at the same time I was managing a national crisis. Their task was to make a decision about whether to move forward with charges in this case, that's their decision to make, that's the counsel's decision to make, that's his job, and they decided not to move forward. For any extraneous commentary, they don't know what they're talking about. It has no place in this report. The bottom line is, the matter is now closed. I'm going to continue what I've always focused on, my job of being president of the United States of America. Thank you and I'll take some questions. QUESTION: President Biden, something that special counsel said in his report, is that one of the reasons you were not charged is because in his description, you are a well-meaning elderly man with a poor memory. BIDEN: I'm well-meaning and I'm an elderly man, and I know what the hell I'm doing. I've been president and I put this country back on its feet. I don't need his recommendation. QUESTION: How bad is your memory? And can you continue as president? BIDEN: My memory is so bad, I let you speak. That's -- QUESTION: Do you know if your memory has gotten worse, Mr. President? BIDEN: My memory has not gotten -- my memory is fine. My memory -- take a look at what I've done since I've become president. None of you thought I could pass any of the things I got passed. How'd that happen? No, I guess I just forgot what was going on. QUESTION: Mr. President -- QUESTION: Voters have concerns about your age. How are you going to dissuade them? And do you fear that this report is only going to fuel further concerns about your age? BIDEN: Only by some of you. QUESTION: Mr. President, you are cleared of criminal liability today, Mr. President. Do you take responsibility for at least being careless with classified material. BIDEN: I take responsibility for not having seen exactly what my staff was doing because it goes in and it goes out. Things that appear in my garage, things that came out of my home, things that were removed, not by me but my staff -- but my staff. (INCOMPREHENSIBLE CONVERSATION) QUESTION: Mr. President, for months when you were asked about your age, you would respond with the words "watch me." Well, many American people have been watching and they have expressed concerns about your age -- BIDEN: That is your judgment. That is your judgment. QUESTION: This is the according to public polling. BIDEN: That is not the judgments of the press. QUESTION: They expressed concerns -- they expressed concerns about your mental acuity. They say that you are too old. Mr. President, in December you told me that you believe there are many other Democrats who could defeat Donald Trump. So why does it have to be you now? What is your answer? BIDEN: Because I am the most qualified person in this country to be president of the United States and finish the job I started. (INCOMPREHENSIBLE CONVERSATION) [20:05:07] QUESTION: Mr. President, why are you confusing the names of world leaders? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you, everyone. Thank you very much. BIDEN: I did not share classified information. I did not share -- QUESTION: With your ghostwriter. BIDEN: With my ghostwriter, I did not. I guarantee you, did not. QUESTION: But the special counsel said that you did -- BIDEN: I did not say that. I did not say that. QUESTION: But Mr. President, one other -- BIDEN: Let me answer your question. The fact of the matter is, what I didn't want repeated, I didn't want him to not -- I didn't read it to him was I had written a long memorandum to President Obama, why we should not be in this -- in Afghanistan. And I was -- it was multiple pages. And so when I was referring to, I said, classified, I should have said it was -- it should be private, because it was a contact between the president and vice president as to what was going on. That's what it is referring to. It was not classified information in that document. That was not classified. (INCOMPREHENSIBLE CONVERSATION) UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thank you so much, guys. QUESTION: He called on me. When you look back at this incident, is there anything you would do differently now? And do you think that a special prosecutor should have been appointed in the first place in both of these cases? BIDEN: First of all, what I would have done is oversee the transfer of the material that was in my office, in my offices. I should have done that. If I go back, I didn't have a responsibility to that. That was my staff that was supposed to do that, and they referenced that in the report. And my staff did not do it in a way that, for example, I didn't know how half the boxes got to my garage, until I found out staff gathered them up, put them together and took them to the garage of my home. And all the stuff that was in my home was in filing cabinets that were either locked or able to be locked. It was in my house. It wasn't out in like in Mar-a-Lago in a public place where -- and none of it was high classified. It didn't have any that red stuff on it, you know what I mean? Around the corners, none of that. And so I wish I had paid more attention to how the documents were being moved to where -- I thought they would be moved to the Archives. I thought all of those would be moved. That's what I thought. Now, what was the last part of the question? QUESTION: Whether a special counsel should have been appointed in this case, and in the case of your rival, former president? BIDEN: I think a special counsel should have been appointed and the reason I think a special counsel should have been appointed is because I did not want to be in a position that they looked at Trump and weren't going to look at me, just like they looked at the vice president. And the fact is, they made a firm conclusion. I did not break the law. Period. Thank you all very, very much. (INCOMPREHENSIBLE CONVERSATION) BIDEN: The hostage negotiation, look, I'm of the view, as you know, that the conduct of the response in Gaza, in the Gaza Strip has been over the top. I think that as you know, initially, the president of (Mexico), El Sisi did not want to open up the gate to allow humanitarian material to get in. I talked to him, I convinced him to open the gate. I talked to Bibi to open the gate on the Israeli side. I've been pushing really hard, really hard to get humanitarian assistance into Gaza. There are a lot of innocent people who are starving, a lot of innocent people who are in trouble and dying and it has got to stop. Number one. Number two, I was also in a position that I'm the guy that made the case that we have to do much more to increase the amount of material going in, including fuel, including other items. I've been on the phone with the Qataris. I've been on the phone with the Egyptians. I've been on the phone with the Saudis to get as much aid as we possibly can into Gaza. They're innocent people, and it's the women and children who are also in bad -- they want badly needed help. And so that's what we're pushing, man. I'm pushing very hard now to deal with this hostage ceasefire because as you know, I've been working tirelessly in this deal. How can I say this without revealing -- to lead to a sustained pause in the fighting and the actions taking place in the Gaza Strip. And because I think if we can get the delay for that initial delay I think that we would be able to extend that so that we could increase the prospect that this fighting in Gaza changes. [20:10:14] There are also in negotiations. You may recall, in the very beginning, right after -- right before Hamas attacked, I was in contact with the Saudis and others to work out a deal where they would recognize Israel's right to exist, let them make them part of the Middle East and recognize them fully, in return for certain things that the United States would commit to do. The commitment that we were proposed to do, related to two items, I'm not going to go in detail, but one of them was to deal with the protection against their archenemy to the northwest -- northeast, I should say. The second one, by providing an ammunition and material for them to defend themselves. Coincidentally, that's the timeframe when this broke out. I have no proof what I'm about to say, but it is not unreasonable to suspect that the Hamas understood what was about to take place and wanted to break it up before it happened. (INCOMPREHENSIBLE CONVERSATION) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you, everybody. ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST, "ANDERSON COOPER: 360": And good evening from New York. I'm Anderson Cooper. KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF CORRESPONDENT: And from Washington, I'm Kaitlan Collins. And you saw there a seething President Biden just wrapping up a press conference dealing with Special Counsel Robert Hur's report on his handling of classified documents where President Biden denied a critical part of that report. COOPER: And the report clears him legally, but could damage him obviously politically, including a passage which reads and I quote: "Mr. Biden would likely to present himself to a jury as he did during our interview with him as a sympathetic, well-meaning elderly man with a poor memory. Joining us now is Kate Bedingfield, who served as communications director in the Biden White House; David Axelrod, who worked with then Vice President Biden as senior adviser to President Obama and former Trump communications director, Alyssa Farah Griffin, all three are now CNN political commentators. Also with us, former federal prosecutor and best-selling author, Jeffrey Toobin. David Axelrod, let me start with you. Is that the press conference the president should have had? DAVID AXELROD, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, look, I understand the concept of why he had the press conference, because this thing was red hot, and it was out there, and he felt he needed to, and his people felt he needed to respond to it. Whether the response was adequate or whether it creates more problems, I think is another question. He did contradict elements of the special counsel's report, and that undoubtedly will go on. And then he was quite angry, not just that the release or the characterizations of the special counsel, but of what some of the reporters were asking him. It is a fact that this is a problem for the president. Anderson, the most damaging things that can happen in politics are things that reinforce a meme that's out there that is hurting you. And the central meme that is hurting the president is this issue of age, it's a big barrier. People don't give him credit for what he's done. They blame him for everything that happens, and a lot of it has to do with their feelings about his age. So it's not wise to say to a reporter, that's your interpretation. It's not. There are reams of polling material about this. So I'm not sure. I mean, he was feisty and energetic, I'll say that, but I'm not sure that he saw his problem tonight. COOPER: Yes, Kate Bedingfield. I'm wondering what you thought. You worked for the president. He did call -- he named Sisi, the president of Egypt, he said it was the president of Mexico. What did you make of that appearance? KATE BEDINGFIELD, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, overall, I mean, I agree with David, it was -- he needed to do it. I think it was it was smart for them to recognize that the narrative was not in a great place, that he needed to show some urgency on it. I think a couple of things that he did that were effective that I heard. So, you know, he took on directly one of the -- kind of pieces, the editorializing that Hur did that was getting traction, the suggestion that he didn't remember the year that his son died. I thought he took that on really effectively. He showed a lot of very genuine emotion. I worked for him for a very long time. There is no doubt that everything about what he was saying there and feeling there is very real. And so he -- I thought he took that on directly, which was effective. You know, I think the second thing he did that was effective here is he did show a little swagger and I think that the swagger does kind of combat the age. I mean, you know, I think you never want to be defensive and you don't want to seem angry or like you're riled up. But you know, I do think in getting a little combative with reporters. He is showing, you know, I've got a lot of energy. I've got a lot -- I've got a lot of life in me, and so I think him doing that was a good thing. COOPER: Alyssa? ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Listen, I don't think the president did himself any favors in that speech. He undercut two of his biggest messages, the adults are back in charge by sort of being dismissive of yes, he was exonerated, he is not going to be convicted or tried for this, but there are some really damning pieces of information in here. [20:15:11] He had deliberations around Afghan war plans with him, he spoke to a biographer about classified documents who didn't have clearance. This showed a decent level of reckless mishandling of classified information, and you shouldn't -- COOPER: He said in that he didn't. GRIFFIN: He said that he didn't. So I think there is a dismissiveness to the seriousness of this. And then on the other hand, they were using this bizarre line to say he stepped away from an international crisis, the biggest attack on our ally, Israel, since the Holocaust to go deal with a self-inflicted investigation by the Department of Justice. How is that supposed to inspire confidence? I don't know why he went back out. He already said most of this in Virginia today, but this is becoming a five-alarm fire for the White House. COOPER: Jeff Toobin? JEFFREY TOOBIN, AUTHOR AND FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Mexico? Mexico? Where did that come from? I mean, that's the only thing anyone is going to remember from this. You know, he was exonerated here. And I think it's an easy call that he was exonerated. And I think legally, he's never had a problem with this because the issue of criminal intent was quite clearly absent in the Biden case. And certainly, according to the accusations in the Jack Smith indictment is very much present in the Trump case. I think they are very different and the report even spelled this out. But Mexico? I mean, politically, how do you explain that? GRIFFIN: And if I may say, if we weren't living in the Donald Trump era where there's 91 indictments and he willfully mishandled classified documents, and he didn't cooperate with investigations, if this was 10 years ago, this would still be a huge story. Yes, he was exonerated, but there are details in here that show just a level of recklessness and negligence, and I think it was far worse than what the public expected. TOOBIN: I don't buy that at all. I mean, you know, classified information is so over -- people over classify so much. Retired people take classified information all the time. I think legally, this is a non-issue. The issue is Biden's age, and that didn't seem really helpful to me. COOPER: Kate? BEDINGFIELD: Well, can I just say, I mean, on this point about Mexico, I mean, he misspoke on the name of the country in the context of a larger answer about what he's doing to try to get humanitarian assistance into Gaza. So was it a perfect answer? Is it great to misspeak? No, it's never great to misspeak. I promise everybody on this panel, right now has misspoken and said the wrong name or the wrong -- you know the wrong date in a conversation. But, you know, he is explaining in great detail the work that he's doing to try to ease that crisis. And so I don't think that we should lose sight of the fact that he is explaining the work that he is doing as president and get so hung up on one word. Is it perfect? I'm sure -- does he wish he had said Egypt rather than Mexico? I'm sure he does. But again, I think you know, misstating one word, I don't think we should over crank on that. COOPER: MJ Lee, you were in the room. I'm wondering what you made of today. MJ LEE, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, I mean, Anderson, this was a President Biden that seemed pretty ticked off, to be honest with you. He was ticked off about the special counsel report, and particularly coverage of it. He said, even though there's language in there that says he did willfully retain some of these classified documents, he said, there's also language that says contrary and that coverage should reflect that. He mentioned specifically one part of the interview and the report where Robert Hur asked him about the death of his son and when that happened, and he said, how dare he raise that. It's none of your business. He was also clearly ticked off about the questions that this report and all of the memory issues that this report raises, all of the questions that will get fueled even more about the concerns about his age, the concerns about his mental acuity and he was pretty ticked off when I asked my question to him, which was the fact that, you know, he has been saying for a while when people have raised concerns about his age, "watch me." Well, a lot of American people who have been watching are making clear that they have concerns about his age, they think he's too old, so why does it have to be him? When I asked that question, he said, you know, this is your opinion, this isn't anybody else's opinion. Public polling clearly suggests that this is a serious concern that a lot of people have. So, you know, I took this as a president who clearly wanted to sort of get out there, show this sort of fighting side to him. And we know in conversations that we've had with Biden's advisers, people who know him really well, that they think that he does sort of well in that setting when he is sort of shouting, sort of fighting, and fighting back at questions, fighting back at the concerns. So I just wonder if there was sort of this opportunity that the White House saw to put him in that setting, take some of these difficult questions that they expected that he would have, but I know you were talking about this with your panel. The fact that in the very press conference, where he was getting asked a lot of questions about his age, his memory issues, he made this important mistake, this notable mistake saying president of Mexico Sisi, that clearly didn't help his cause. [20:20:09] But again, I think this was a president that wanted to sort of use his own words to address everything that has happened today. This White House and this president, they know that these questions about age, his memory, his misspeaks, his missteps, they're not going away anytime soon. COOPER: Yes, and you referenced the moment where he talked about his son in the report that it references his son, the (former) president according to the report couldn't in that moment, remember the date of it. Let's play what the president said tonight. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BIDEN: I know there's some attention paid to some language and report about my recollection of events. There's even reference that I don't remember when my son died. How the hell dare he raise that? Frankly, when I was asked the question, I thought to myself, it wasn't any of their damn business. Let me tell you something, some of you have commented, I wear since the day he died, every single day the rosary he got from Our Lady of -- every Memorial Day, we hold a service remembering him attended by friends and family and the people who loved him. I don't need anyone -- I don't need anyone to remind me when he passed away. (END VIDEO CLIP) COOPER: David Axelrod, you said that you thought that was a moment that was effective, and clearly, obviously very real and emotional. AXELROD: Oh, absolutely. Look, when I saw the report, honestly, that was the hardest part to comprehend, because anyone who knows Joe Biden, and anyone who has watched Joe Biden knows just how impactful the loss of his son was to him. And so -- and I thought that was very genuine and very powerful. You know, it's the rest of the stuff that was a little worrisome, and you know, just responding to Kate, it is true, all of us make mistakes at times and misstate things and that is, we're human beings. The problem is this has become a real thing. Now, every time the president does that, it becomes a story. It becomes the thing, and it goes viral on social media where he is getting pounded on this age issue, particularly among younger people. So that is a stubborn problem that is an obstacle to get -- you know, in his campaign moving forward. COOPER: So David, what -- I mean, Kate, as somebody who worked in the White House, I mean, from a campaign standpoint, what does that mean, in terms of putting him out going out there? We heard in our earlier hour, commentators saying that he needs to get out there more people need to see him as being vital. Is that what the campaign is going to look like? BEDINGFIELD: I think that's what it should look like. I think this -- I think it argues to put him out more, not less. I think the more people see him, the more they hear him, describing what it is he is doing, what the goals he's trying to achieve, the more they see him interacting with people, you know, out on the campaign trail, as the campaign heats up, obviously, some of his best moments are when he is talking one-on-one or in small groups with people where he shows an incredible amount of empathy and understanding for their lives. So, you know, I think the more he's out there, the better. It also reduces the amount of focus on every -- you know, every individual misspeak. Again, people who essentially speak publicly for a living, of course, they're going to misspeak from time to time. So, you know, the more he's out showcasing what he's fighting for, what he's achieved. And again, that contrast with Donald Trump. I mean, we sort of in this conversation, we've sort of lost a little bit some of the biggest news from this report today, which was you know, the special counsel talking about the very clear differences between the way Donald Trump essentially obstructed the investigation into his own handling of classified documents, and, you know, willfully mishandled them versus what Biden did, what he said was much more about, essentially unintentional moving of these documents. So again, I think the more Biden goes out, the more people see him, the more they see his vigor and also his passion for what he's working on the better and again, the less focus on each individual misspeak. TOOBIN: By the way, it was outrageous that Hur put in some of that stuff in this report. That had no place in it. There is no reason why this report had to be 300 pages. There is no reason why this fairly straightforward case had to be treated this way. And the -- I mean, this was just like what James Comey did to Hillary Clinton when he supposedly cleared her of the use of classified information, and then talked about how reckless and terrible she was. [20:25:01] You know, the job of prosecutors is to put up or shut up. If you have a case, bring your case. If you don't have a case, shut the hell up or say as little as -- COOPER: Do you think he's playing politics? TOOBIN: I absolutely do. You know, Merrick Garland picked a Republican prosecutor, someone who worked for Donald Trump. I don't know why Merrick Garland chose him. Democrats seem to have this idea that if they pick Republicans for these tough jobs, they'll get some credit for it. It didn't work with James Comey, appointed by a Democrat; it didn't work with Hur, and I think this was -- there was no case to be brought here. But Hur did his best to damage Biden politically. Now, unfortunately, for Biden, Biden didn't help himself today in his response, but the idea that this was put in this report, you know that he was elderly -- that didn't belong in that report. GRIFFIN: Some of it did feel very gratuitous, I do agree with that. But I do caution, I see an emerging narrative from Democrats that this is a partisan investigation by the DOJ. This was a Republican and a Trump appointee, so therefore, he is putting this in. The message of the Democrats has been we should trust our institutions. We can trust the Department of Justice. It's not weaponized. Republicans are misrepresenting it. And I'm seeing a bit of that coming in response to this report, not from you specifically, but some of the Democrats that are defending Biden tonight. COOPER: Kate Bedingfield, thank you. David Axelrod, Jeff Toobin, Alyssa Farah Griffin, MJ Lee as well. Let's go back to Kaitlan in DC -- Kaitlan. COLLINS: Thanks, Anderson. I'm joined here by Audie Cornish, host of "The Assignment" Podcast; Elie Honig, Ashley Allison, and Doug Heye, all here with us. Ashley, let me start with you, because let's start on the age thing, because I think what's important here is the context, that this is not just one moment that this happened, where he mixed up Mexico and Egypt as he just did there. This comes with a lot of backdrop and a lot of concerns. And it's not just one moment in the report either; also in the last week, he has referenced dead European leaders who haven't been alive since the 90s, confusing them with current or almost current leaders. I think it's a bigger picture of the questions. And clearly the White House felt the need to address that, and that's why they made him come out for these abruptly scheduled remarks tonight. ASHLEY ALLISON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes, a couple of points. First, Joe Biden and Donald Trump are both old Americans and there is nothing that we're going to be able to do in this election cycle to change that narrative, except go directly at it. And I think I mean, I hear a lot of people tonight saying, I don't think it was a good move. Well, you can't just hide because that's -- we're not in a normal political media atmosphere. You have -- voters want a fight. Voters want to say, you come at me and you talk about my son. I mean, I remember when my son died, I'm going to tell you something. And so will it be the thing that folks decide in November, whether or not Donald Trump and Joe Biden on age? Probably not because their age actually cancels them out. It's who was going to stand up for me? Who is going to fight? There were moments that when he mixed up Mexico and the president of Egypt, but I will argue in his remarks, that young voters, the thing that they were listening to was what he said about Gaza, and that he was -- he went as far as I have ever heard him say, to without saying the word ceasefire, he said, I want an extended pause on hostages. That's what young people are actually looking at, not whether or not he mixed up the name of the president. They want to know, what are your actual policies, and I'd be curious to see what the polling shows if they get out there with this message, if it gets more traction. His age isn't going to change, so he has to take it on straight ahead. You can do it with little comedy the way he did it with the Fox reporter, talking about, you know, my biggest memory loss was that I even let you speak because we know that antagonistic behavior. It might not work for all voters, but he can't hide on this. COLLINS: Doug, is that the case? Because when you look at polling, voters way more register that concern of age with Biden than they do with Trump, even though Trump is as Ashley noted just a few years behind him. DOUG HEYE, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: That's very true and you hear that from younger voters. You hear it from older voters. My 90-year-old aunt in Little Silver, New Jersey today said, this guy is too old and we hear this over and over again. And the problem for Biden is yes, the issue is not going away because Biden is not going away. And every time he presents himself, there's a problem like this. You know, David Axelrod was praising earlier when he invoked -- when he evoked his son, Beau. Well, I heard was he mentioned the rosary from Our Lady of -- and then he didn't name the church because he got stuck in a moment there. It reminds me very much of, in 1994, in the fall going to see Frank Sinatra in concert at Merriweather Post, not far from here and one minute "Come Fly With Me" was amazing. A few minutes later, he could barely remember the words from "My Way." And what did we remember? That he couldn't remember the words to "My Way." This is going to be a recurring problem for Biden. And ultimately, the Biden White House right now is saying three things. One, hey, a lot of people forget things. Two, he was slightly less responsible than Donald Trump. And three, there was a lot going on in the world with Israel, so let's cut him some slack. That's not strong messaging. COLLINS: Audie, what did you hear in that? AUDIE CORNISH, CNN ANCHOR AND CORRESPONDENT: I mean, I guess I'm the only one who's not as alarmed because I'm looking at it kind of holistically. This report comes out and this line is in it and they have to address it right away. There's no scenario where you let that sit. And in terms of media management, you want to be out there because what happened after he had his speech, we played a clip of him saying, how dare you speak about my son that way. We didn't play a clip of him, you know, saying Mexico instead of Egypt. And I think people take these things in a different way than they used to. They're not sitting home at the couch waiting for him to speak. What they're going to do is see a number of clips. And your point is very well taken, that essentially there's a lot of young people who have been waiting for him to speak in some kind of striking way about Israel and Gaza and specifically him saying, I think they've gone overboard using that kind of language. That's going to be very striking in the social media space. And also seeing all the reporters barking at him, yelling at him, saying, right, right, right, right. And then he's got quick, fast, snappy. defensive replies. I don't necessarily think again, generationally, they're going to be like, whoa, he was sarcastic. I like a nicer Biden. That hasn't been what they've been asking for. So I'm just going to put it out there. I know everyone has said that this was bad for a number of reasons, but I would challenge our thinking on this and that people don't take it in the way we do. Nitpicking at it because that's our job. They're going to get these emotional clips and they're going to walk away with his emotion, which was very intense, almost enraged, use the word seething, and people may hear particular clips and think, maybe it was justifiably so. COLLINS: Yes. I think some people, you know, covering Biden, you realize he does have a temper. His whole staff, his allies, Kate Bedingfield, I'm sure would acknowledge that, that it is something that is known about him. CORNISH: But if this report is saying he's Mr. Magoo, he can't come out and be Mr. Magoo. He's got to come out and be punchy and be the guy you're talking about. COLLINS: This report -- and a key part of this, Elie, and to go back to what Jeffrey Toobin was saying there, the Special Counsel Robert Hur, did have to issue a report. Those are his regulations. It was this lengthy report, which we were expecting. Was that him trying to explain why he didn't charge Biden? Why that was going to be so long? What was your read on what that -- on what he said? ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: So first of all, this report is required by the special counsel regulations. And if we want a precedent of somebody issuing a very long special counsel report without recommending a charge, look no further than Robert Mueller, who issued a 400-page special counsel report and did not specifically say, I recommend criminal charges. He was ambiguous and testified. Let me be clear about this. This is a very close call. I have written and read 1,000 of these documents, they're called prosecution memos. You lay out the facts and you say, here's my recommendation as to charging or not charging. Joe Biden is correct. That Donald Trump's conduct was worse. But his conduct was still very close to the line. Here are the facts. Joe Biden, established by this report, Joe Biden retained sensitive, classified documents after he left the vice presidency. CORNISH: Marked classified or? HONIG: Yes, marked classified, highest level, top secret SCI. They related to our international affairs, to war plans, to foreign relations. He knew it. He knew it. He's on tape. After he's out of the vice presidency saying to his autobiographer, the classified documents are in the basement. He knew it. COLLINS: But he just denied that. That's -- HONIG: Exactly. So that's -- COLLINS: That was a key part of the report. It's a second sentence in the report, and he just denied sharing that with the ghostwriter. And I just looked at this closely. They had recorded conversations between Biden and this ghostwriter. HONIG: Exactly. That is what blew my mind about Joe Biden's statement. Except two major things he just outright it contradicts or is contradicted by, however you look at this, this report. There are two things he said that are completely the opposite of what Robert Hur found. And who do you believe is up to, I guess, the individual consumer. First, Joe Biden says, I did not act willfully. Willfully just means voluntarily, intentionally. Well, the second sentence of this whole summary says, President Biden willfully retained and disclosed classified materials. The facts in here show it was willful. He knew. He talked about it. And the second thing he says is, I did not disclose classified documents to my ghostwriter. Page three says that he did that. It says, Mr. Biden shared information, including some classified information from those notebooks with his ghostwriter. COLLINS: What is the distinction in -- and I want you to make your point, but what's the distinction in what he said about, well, they were at my house because we saw the picture there in the garage. It's that box of documents. And he said Trump's were at Mar-a-Lago, you know, where people come by. It is true. There was an estimation that I think 40,000, 48,000 guests came through Mar-a-Lago in that time period. How does the Justice Department see and -- HONIG: To me, that is an irrelevant distinction. They're both in unsecured facilities. I didn't understand what he was driving at there. Maybe he was saying there's less foot traffic. That is barely a factor in what my consideration would have been here as a prosecutor. [20:35:07] And ultimately, what Robert Hur says in this report is essentially the technical elements of a crime, it appears Robert Hur saying, were met. But what he ends up doing is looking at the soft factors. And you're allowed to do that. You have to do that as a prosecutor. And he takes into consideration things like, what he says, and maybe this is overstated, maybe not, I'll leave that to the political folks, but he says, essentially, Joe Biden would have created a sympathetic picture in front of a jury. He had memory issues, he had age issues, and that goes into, did he -- was he able to form the mental intent here? And also, look, the fact that Joe Biden cooperated, it's not a free pass. You can't break the law and then say, well, I cooperated. It cancels what I did before. But you can take that into account as a prosecutor's perfectly appropriate to say from the moment we engage with them, they were cooperative and to give that a plus on the scale. CORNISH: Is that it has, though, given that the entire framing in terms -- that this is a comparative scandal. HONIG: Right. CORNISH: Meaning, it's about what Trump did versus what Biden did -- HONIG: Yes. CORNISH: -- or Pence did. So fundamentally, the thing that Trump is still in trouble for is not cooperating. So I know in isolation -- HONIG: Right. CORNISH: -- you're making a very specific argument, but politically, he's going to look out in the public and say, hey, look, fundamentally, I did what was asked, he didn't, that's why he's still in trouble. HONIG: It's a great question, and you're very much in line with what the special counsel writes in here. No question, Donald Trump's conduct is worse than this. There's no way to spin that any other way. Robert Hur, the special counsel, goes out of his way in this document to lay out the ways that Donald Trump's conduct is worse. And the primary distinction is exactly that. Joe Biden cooperated and Donald Trump obstructed, and that makes a big difference to prosecutors. COLLINS: But is this not a -- is this not helpful to Trump's team, though, that is still -- HONIG: It is, COLLINS: -- handling the -- because we have a former Trump attorney waiting in the -- HONIG: Yes, it's helpful. COLLINS: Isn't this going to be something that they could potentially use? HONIG: Let me tell you two ways it's helpful. One is just atmospherically, right? We've all seen a thousand times the photos of documents strewn around the bathroom in the stage of Mar-a-Lago. Now there's similar looking photos in this report. But here's the technical way that Donald Trump's team is going to use this. Mark my words. Donald Trump's team in the federal Jack Smith classified documents case of Mar-a-Lago is going to bring a motion for what's called selective prosecution. Very, very hard to win these motions. What you have to do is show a judge somebody else did essentially the same thing I did. I was prosecuted. He was not. Now, Donald Trump has a basis to make that motion. ASHLEY ALLISON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: So, I'll just say, everything you said, brilliant. You're a wonderful lawyer. HONIG: Thank you. ALLISON: And yet, most Americans are not going to read that report. Most Americans did not read the Mueller report. But what they will know is that Joe Biden was not charged with the crime because Robert Hur decided that. And that Robert Hur also made editorial comments about his age. Those are the two takeaways. The question is, when Donald Trump's case comes up, will those still matter to people, or will his case of not cooperating and the antics that we know Donald Trump will pull when he is up for trial will cancel out what Joe Biden did today? COLLINS: Everyone, stand by, we have a lot more to get catch up on as we are breaking down those abrupt remarks from the president there at the White House. Up next also, today's historic oral arguments that happened at the Supreme Court. That has to do with keeping Donald Trump off the ballot in Colorado under the 14th Amendment's insurrectionist clause. Laurence Tribe and Retired Judge Michael Luttig, who played a key role in that debate, will join Anderson after a quick break. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [20:42:14] ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: It sounds awfully national to me, telling words during oral arguments today from Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, part of a chorus from her fellow justices signaling a deep skepticism for Colorado State Supreme Court decision barring Donald Trump from the ballot. In a moment, I'm going to talk to the two constitutional scholars, Laurence Tribe and Judge Michael Luttig, who have been a key part of this debate over this, but first, CNN's Paula Reid. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): In one of the most anticipated Supreme Court cases of the year, the justices signaling they will side with Donald Trump on the question of whether he's eligible for the 2024 ballot. The former president did not attend Thursday's arguments. Most justices didn't address his role in the January 6th insurrection, instead focusing on legal arguments around the 14th Amendment. Trump's lawyer, Jonathan Mitchell, an experienced Supreme Court advocate, argued Trump isn't covered by the so-called insurrectionist ban. JONATHAN MITCHELL, ATTORNEY REPRESENTING DONALD TRUMP: A ruling from this court that affirms the decision below would not only violate term limits, but take away the votes of potentially tens of millions of Americans. REID (voice-over): And argued January 6 was not even an insurrection. Only one justice asked about whether it was. KETANJI BROWN JACKSON, JUSTICE: So the point is that a chaotic effort to overthrow the government is not an insurrection? MITCHELL: This was a riot. It was not an insurrection. REID (voice-over): Jason Murray argued for Colorado voters who won their case at the lower court. JASON MURRAY, ATTORNEY REPRESENTING COLORADO VOTERS: By engaging an insurrection against the Constitution, President Trump disqualified himself from public office. States have the power to ensure that their citizens' electoral votes are not wasted on a candidate who is constitutionally barred from holding office. REID (voice-over): But the justices appeared much more skeptical. In an ominous sign, the Chief Justice said Murray's arguments were at war with history. JOHN ROBERTS, CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES: That seems to be a position that is at war with the whole thrust of the 14th Amendment and very ahistorical. The whole point of the 14th Amendment was to restrict state power. REID (voice-over): And question the consequences of a ruling in favor of Colorado and other states then following suit. ROBERTS: It'll come down to just a handful of states that are going to decide the presidential election. That's a pretty daunting consequence. REID (voice-over): Even Liberal Justice Elena Kagan asked this. ELENA KAGAN, JUSTICE: I think that the question that you have to confront is why a single state should decide who gets to be president of the United States. REID (voice-over): It was Murray's first time arguing before the high court, and he engaged in several contentious exchanges with the justices, and even got a scolding from Justice Gorsuch, who he once clerked for. MURRAY: Nevertheless, they were put into that office. NEIL GORSUCH, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT: No, no, we're talking about Section 3. MURRAY: And -- GORSUCH: Please don't change the hypothetical. [20:45:02] REID (voice-over): And even though the argument seemed to go well for Trump, he still wanted the last word, addressing reporters outside Mar-a-Lago. DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Can you take the person that's leading everywhere and say, hey, we're not going to let you run. You know, I think that's pretty tough to do, but I'm leaving it up to the Supreme Court. (END VIDEOTAPE) COOPER: And Paul Reid joins me now. Do we know how long is it going to take to get a decision? REID (on-camera): It's unclear. We know the chief justice is under enormous pressure to build consensus across party lines, come up with something, maybe a narrow ruling that would have bipartisan support. If you listen to the arguments today, it appears that that is possible. And it's important, Anderson, because we know this court is under scrutiny for concerns about ethics and partisanship. But something like that also takes time, and it's unclear if the chief justice will be able to accomplish this and get out an opinion before Super Tuesday, which is just a month away. COOPER: All right, Paul Reid, thank you. I want to get perspective now from perhaps the two best known voices behind the argument that the 14th Amendment bars the former president from the 2024 ballot, both distinguished constitutional scholars, Retired Federal Appeals Court Judge Michael Luttig and Harvard Law School's Laurence Tribe, whose latest book is titled, "To End Presidency: The Power of Impeachment." Professor Tribe, I'm wondering what your takeaway was from today's historic hearing. LAURENCE TRIBE, HARVARD LAW SCHOOL PROFESSOR: Well, it's quite clear that the Colorado decision to exclude Donald Trump from the primary ballot is going to be overturned, perhaps nine to nothing, perhaps eight to one. But what I took away from it was quite a different lesson. The two members of the court, who were my former students, the Chief Justice and Justice Kagan, whom you quoted just a couple of minutes ago, saying, isn't it amazing that just one or two states might determine who becomes president? Where have they been all this time? When they studied constitutional law, there was something they learned about the Electoral College. I doubt that they've forgotten about it. But to listen to the argument, you'd think they have. The fact is that the court is engaged in sort of selective remembering and selective forgetting. They seem to have forgotten that the way our Constitution is structured under Article II, it is the states that basically run even the election for president. And it is true, as the chief justice pointed out, that the thrust of the 14th Amendment was to give the federal government more power and the states less. But it didn't change the basic structure of who decides who gets on the ballot. Now, if I just take a step back, let me just say, what Judge Luttig and I wrote back in August of last year was that Donald Trump is constitutionally disqualified by the most democracy protecting provision of the Constitution. It's there to prevent someone who swears to support the Constitution and then mounts an insurrection against it to prevent that person from coming back into power. We said that under that provision, Donald Trump is disqualified. Nothing the Supreme Court decides in this case is likely to contradict that. They're likely to say that the way Colorado did it at this stage, when they are simply deciding who runs for the primary election, that is not permissible. But they're simply kicking the can down the road, because when people argue that he is disqualified by the Constitution, either at the stage of the general election, or when Congress meets in January of 2025 to count the electoral votes, this problem will rise again and the court will not have avoided chaos. It will simply have postponed it. COOPER: Judge Luttig, I'm wondering what your takeaway was. I mean, certainly you heard the skepticism from many of the justices today about the Colorado's court decision. J. MICHAEL LUTTIG, FORMER U.S. COURT OF APPEALS JUDGE, FOURTH CIRCUIT: Anderson, the first thing I would say is that I agree with every single substantive constitutional point that Professor Tribe just made. It's rare, Anderson, that you can tell what the Supreme Court is going to do from oral argument. But sometimes you can tell what the court is not going to do, and this is one of those times. The Supreme Court of the United States is not going to decide whether the former president is disqualified under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Not now, and I don't believe ever. To that kicking the can down the road, Professor Tribe is exactly right. [20:50:01] Under our Constitution, the states have the power, under the electors and elections clauses, to administer and conduct federal elections, including the election for the president of the United States. That's all the Supreme Court needs to know to say that the state of Colorado had the constitutional power to disqualify the former president. But as Professor Tribe says, they've now kicked it down the road, if not kicked it off the road forever. In particular, if they've only kicked it down the road, there will come a time when the general election is approaching that the Supreme Court will have to decide the case. And that would be a less timely decision than it would have been to make that decision today. But what the Supreme Court is hoping without any question whatsoever is that it will never have to decide this question. They're hoping and banking on the fact that Donald Trump will not win the presidency. Because in their view, and in the argument that was properly made by his lawyer, Section 3 only disqualifies a person from holding the office. By its terms, it does not disqualify one from running for the office, in either the primary or the general. But if the Supreme Court waits, and it does come to pass that the former president is elected president of the United States in 2024, then the Supreme Court of the United States will have to address whether that newly elected president of the United States is disqualified under the 14th amendment. That is a recipe for national chaos. COOPER: I mean, that seems, how would they even -- you're saying if Trump was actually elected, then the Supreme Court would have to decide whether the 14th Amendment would prevent him from actually assuming office. LUTTIG: That's exactly correct, Anderson, because Section 3, by its terms, only prevents a person who engages in an insurrection against the Constitution from holding the office. And indeed, the former president's lawyers actually argued in their reply brief, that the Supreme Court of the United States never will have the power to decide the former president's disqualification. COOPER: Right. LUTTIG: Why? They argued because the Congress of the United States can at any time remove the disqualification. And so they literally argued to the Supreme Court, one, the court does not have the power to decide the case, this issue at all -- COOPER: Right. LUTTIG: -- and it certainly can't decide it until 2029 after the president -- COOPER: That would be cast. LUTTIG: -- would be out of office if he were elected. COOPER: Yes. Professor Tribe, just briefly, were you -- you know, nobody really thought, or a lot of people -- a lot of observers thought, and it seems like it was the case, other than Justice Jackson, the court largely avoided discussion of whether January 6th was an insurrection. I assume that's -- you anticipated that. TRIBE: Right, except I do want to add January 6 is only the climax. What we didn't hear today and are going to hear going forward is whether the president, who was then the president, whether Donald Trump orchestrated a coup against the Constitution through fake electoral ballots, fake electoral slates, an elaborate plot. If that plot had succeeded, they wouldn't even have had to storm the Capitol. It's the entire course of conduct -- COOPER: Yes. TRIBE: -- that was an insurrection against the Constitution. The court could have made that clear, and that would have solved, at a national level, what is otherwise still going to bedevil people through different definitions of insurrection. COOPER: Professor Tribe, I appreciate your time. Judge Michael Luttig as well. Thank you so much. TRIBE: Thank you. COOPER: I'll go back to Kaitlan. COLLINS: Thanks, Anderson. Of course, we heard from the former president a moment ago, he had this to say about what happened in court today, which I should note was an appearance that he chose not to attend. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) TRUMP: I thought it was very -- it's a very beautiful process. I hope that democracy in this country will continue. I thought the presentation today was a very good one. I think it was well received. I hope it was well received. (END VIDEO CLIP) [20:55:07] And I'm joined now by a former attorney for Donald Trump, Jim Trusty, who we've seen multiple times here before. What did you make of how the arguments went today and how each side argued them? JAMES TRUSTY, FORMER TRUMP ATTORNEY: I think the arguments actually went reasonably well. I mean, both of these lawyers are people that clerked for Supreme Court justices, they seem to be pretty at ease, pretty at home. There was different levels of kind of hostile fire as he -- as we heard before in terms of Justice Gorsuch turning the tables on his own former law clerk for a minute, but it was not particularly aggressive. It wasn't what I would call an extra hot bench. They got their points out. I thought there was some interesting areas that are really kind of different than the last two folks that Anderson -- COLLINS: How's that? TRUSTY: -- was talking about. Well, you know, a couple of things. Number one, is it's not a surprise at all to me that they didn't really get into this thicket, this rabbit hole of what is insurrection and what was the proof. I mean, if you really -- if you want to get to the heart of what I think strikes a lot of people as wrong with that proceeding, it's not that they're all well versed about Article 3, you know, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. It's this idea of having a mini trial, of having a political report serve as evidence with no real rules of evidence. Having a sociologist come in and say, I know what Trump really meant. I mean, those are things that are kind of bizarre due process challenges. But if the Supreme Court goes on that, if they say, we don't like the trial, then they keep the door open for every state to have its own trial and to get an assessment by the Supreme Court eventually. I think they're looking -- or Roberts, I think, is looking for a kind of a foundational procedural thing that can shut all of this litigation down. And what was interesting to me, the one that had a lot of traction, is the idea of whether or not this part of the 14th Amendment even applies to the president. And remember, the Colorado lower court said, I think he's an insurrectionist, but it doesn't apply to him. And that takes us -- COLLINS: The officer versus the office. TRUSTY: Exactly. And what it does, it takes you into this really, I mean, it may be fascinating to nerds like me only, but literally, you had justices talking about what happened in 1868, 1869, 1870. How does that shed light on, you know, if Jefferson Davis ran for president of the newly United States, what was going to happen? And to me, that's all fascinating history. What was interesting to me is, of all people, that Justice Jackson weighed in on that. It was maybe a little hint -- I heard it as if there was a little hint of disappointment in her voice, but she said, it really doesn't look like he was -- he, the president -- was supposed to be a part of this particular regulation. You know, she looked at it and said, he's not on the list. COLLINS: Even though she seemed to believe -- and I don't want to obviously speak for her -- but she seemed to believe that he had maybe engaged in the insurrection, just not necessarily that this ban of this clause would apply to him, dating back to that conversation. TRUSTY: She's basically tracking the lower court in Colorado. I mean, saying essentially, I have all sorts of problems with this conduct, that would be kind of what we infer from her comments, but that I just don't think that this applies to him at all. And if that's the case, if the 14th Amendment literally stops itself at appointed officers, not at the president of the United States, then all the litigation just falls off. COLLINS: How different are the implications of what they do decide if they decide it on a technical procedural grounds or if they decide it on the merits? TRUSTY: I think with a lot of the procedural grounds, they can amputate all of the rest of the litigation. I think it was Justice -- COLLINS: But does it open up to further litigation in the future? TRUSTY: Well, no, not particularly, but there are some avenues within the procedural that could still get there. I think Justice Sotomayor was talking about some issues about federalism, whether states versus feds. And I think my read on it was she was setting up the possibility that you could still have litigation on this issue, but in federal court. So there may be an agreement that we don't want to get to the due process. We don't want to go one by one by one. You know, Maine, Colorado, all these different states with different processes to talk about the trial. But there may be disagreement on the exact procedural basis that could shut this down. And as you're pointing out, some of it may not amputate all the rest of the litigation. Some of it could. COLLINS: Donald Trump wasn't there today. As you know, we've talked recently, since you've no longer represented him, but times when he's gone to court, how much of a difference do you think that makes when he's in the room with the attorneys making the arguments and when he's not? TRUSTY: Yes, I don't -- look, I think the last time we talked about it, I said, I think it's good for him to be able to take things in firsthand, but it's not something where, you know, it's not a -- an old gangster movie where all of a sudden the judges freak out because he's there. I mean, these are Supreme Court -- COLLINS: I met his attorneys more, act differently or maybe argue a little differently. TRUSTY: I would hope that they don't really cater to the politics as much as just knowing I'm in front of the Supreme Court, highest court of the land. I've got to answer their questions and I have to have the best foot forward. So my impression, there was a couple of soundbite moments in terms of talking about insurrection. He disqualified himself, I think was the line. But really, most of it was very much, I think, responsibly reacting to the questions. COLLINS: You said not a hot bench. What does that tell you about how the court is approaching this? CNN Live Event/Special Aired February 08, 2024 - 21:00 ET THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. [21:00:00] KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN HOST, THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS: Do you think they kind of have made their decisions? JAMES TRUSTY, FORMER TRUMP ATTORNEY, PARTNER, IFRAH LAW, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: No, I mean. And lawyers that try to bank on the Supreme Court are going to go poor, quickly, on those predictions. So, I don't bet any money on it. But I do think that they -- I think there seem to be a flavor of looking for a procedural/foundational component that they can agree on, to basically end this, without talking about the trial, for insurrection itself. COLLINS: Jim Trusty, always great to talk to you. TRUSTY: You too. COLLINS: We'll wait to see what they decide. Obviously, we have many more legal issues, for the former President that we may talk about going forward. TRUSTY: Right. COLLINS: Thanks for joining us here, on set, tonight. And of course, as we are looking at what has happened, just in the last hour, alone, the entire busy day, oral arguments that we've just been talking about that happened at the Supreme Court. Also, as we've been discussing, President Biden himself, now weighing in, in those abruptly scheduled remarks, at the White House, after a Special Counsel legally cleared him, for mishandling classified documents, but also doing so in a way that created a political headache. The President began, by talking about the legal aspect of that case. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Let me say a few things before I take your questions. As you know, the Special Counsel released its findings, today, about their look into my handling of classified documents. I was pleased to see he reached a firm conclusion that no charges should be brought, against me, in this case. This was an exhaustive investigation going back more than 40 years, even into the 1970s, when I was still a new United States senator. And the Special Counsel acknowledged I cooperated completely. I did not throw up any roadblocks. I sought no delays. In fact, I was so determined to give the Special Counsel what he needed, I went forward with a five-hour in-person -- five-hour in- person interview, over two days, on October the 8th and 9th of last year, even though Israel had just been attacked, by Hamas, on the 7th, and I was very occupied. Was in the middle of handling an international crisis. I was especially pleased to see Special Counsel make clear, the stark distinction and difference between this case, and Mr. Trump's case. The Special Counsel wrote, and I quote, "Several material distinctions between Mr. Trump's case and Mr. Biden's are clear," continuing to quote, "Most notably," after given "multiple chances to return classified documents" to "avoid prosecution, Mr. Trump allegedly did the opposite. According to the indictment, he not only refused to return the documents for many months... he also obstructed justice by enlisting others to destroy evidence and then to lie about it." "In contrast," he went on to say "Mr. Biden turned in classified documents to the National Archives and the Department of Justice, consented to the search of multiple locations including his" home, "sat for a voluntary interview and in other ways cooperated with the investigation." End of quote. (END VIDEOTAPE) COLLINS: In addition to the legal aspect of this report, you also saw President Biden address the parts of it, talking about his age and his mental acuity. And we'll talk about that shortly here, in this hour. But first, more on the Supreme Court, taking up the Colorado Supreme Court's decision, that barred Donald Trump from the ballot, citing the 14th Amendment. It got a very skeptical hearing and oral arguments today. We listened to them live. Justice Elena Kagan, speaking volumes, with this question, to the attorney representing the plaintiffs here, Jason Murray. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) ELENA KAGAN, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE: I think that the question that you have to confront is why a single state should decide who gets to be President of the United States. In other words, you know, this question of whether a former President is disqualified for insurrection to be president again, is, just say it, it sounds awfully national to me. So whatever means there are to enforce it would suggest that they have to be federal, national means. Why does, you know, if you weren't from Colorado and you were from Wisconsin, or you were from Michigan, and it really, you know, what the Michigan Secretary of State did is going to make the difference between, you know, whether Candidate A is elected or Candidate B is elected. I mean, that seems quite extraordinary, doesn't it? JASON MURRAY, ATTORNEY REPRESENTING COLORADO VOTERS: No, Your Honor, because ultimately, it's this court that's going to decide that question of federal constitutional eligibility and settle the issue for the nation. (END VIDEO CLIP) COLLINS: And joining me now, New York Republican congresswoman, Elise Stefanik, the House Republican Conference Chair, and the highest- ranking woman, in House leadership, I should note. Congresswoman, thanks for being here, on this busy day. I'm just curious, what it says to you about the U.S. that the Supreme Court is even hearing an argument like this, about a former President, and whether or not he violated the insurrectionist clause. REP. ELISE STEFANIK (R-NY): Well, it shows that the left, and the Democrat Party, and Joe Biden's campaign, they know they're going to lose at the ballot box, which is why you're seeing lawfare, you're seeing witch-hunt after witch-hunt, court case after court case, going after Joe Biden's top political opponent, which is Donald Trump. COLLINS: But even-- STEFANIK: And today was a very bad day for Joe Biden. It was a very bad day, in court, for the left. It was a very bad day for the Colorado bogus court case. [21:05:00] It was a very good day for President Trump. And it was a good day for the Constitution, and the American people. The American people are going to make this decision in November. Not radical bureaucrats, from the State of Colorado, not radical judges, or far-left prosecutors. COLLINS: But even though it's Republican and Independent voters, who brought this lawsuit, in Colorado, I mean, I think that's an important part of this as well. STEFANIK: This is a witch-hunt against President Trump. And it is not a coincidence that it is while President Trump is skyrocketing in the polls. Meanwhile, we saw a disastrous day for Joe Biden. Joe Biden started this week, plummeting in the polls, the weakest polling for a modern-day President, an incumbent president. And yet you saw a feeble, mental acuity lacking in the President of the United States, just today. So, this is a horrible day. It's a disastrous day for Joe Biden. It's a winning day for Donald Trump. COLLINS: Let's talk about that report in a moment. STEFANIK: And the Supreme Court case is likely to have multiple liberal justices that side with the conservative justices, in this case, siding for the Constitution. COLLINS: So, you think that the court here is going to rule and overturn the Supreme Court in Colorado's decision? STEFANIK: Absolutely. And you heard questions whether it was from Justice Elena Kagan, you heard multiple questions, from the liberal justices, who are likely, I believe, this could be a 9-0, an 8-1, or a 7-2 case. COLLINS: So, the next thing that the Supreme Court could potentially take up is the question of Donald Trump's argument, his assertion of presidential immunity. If you trust the Supreme Court's decision, on the 14th Amendment, will you accept what they decide, on presidential immunity as well? STEFANIK: Well, certainly. I will have something to say when the court makes that decision. But I already have put out a public statement. Of course, the President has presidential immunity. You can't handcuff a sitting President of the United States, for future presidents to go after them. It would not allow them, to do their job, in their official capacity. So, that was a wrongheaded decision. I expect the Supreme Court will overturn that as well. COLLINS: The appeals court decision? STEFANIK: Yes. COLLINS: Does that extend to President Biden? Do you think that he can do whatever and not get prosecuted as well? STEFANIK: Well, that's what the Trump campaign put out. They said this is a very slippery slope, because it means that if you're of an opposing party, that you could go after your predecessor, based upon policy disagreements or official acts. So, that's why this is so egregious. And the reality is Kaitlan, the issues that the American people are concerned about? They're concerned about the border. They're concerned about the inflation crisis. They're concerned about the lack of leadership from the sitting President of the United States, Joe Biden. That's why they're going to make the decision, to vote for President Trump, at the polls. And that's why you're seeing despite lawsuit after lawsuit, President Trump's numbers continue to go up, because this is not a fair justice system, right now. You see the justice system being weaponized, against Joe Biden's top political opponent. And that's Donald Trump. COLLINS: I think the scathing report, though, that came out today, that you referenced, on President Biden's handling of documents, would suggest that it's not weaponized, because it was -- it was quite brutal, in its assessment. But if he had been charged? STEFANIK: It's selective prosecution, Kaitlan. COLLINS: If he had been charged, would you -- would you make the argument that he shouldn't have been charged, because he has presidential immunity? STEFANIK: Well, first of all, if you look at what the Special Counsel said, it was a willful -- willfully not abiding by rules, when it comes to classified information, willfully breaking the law. And the only reason they're not pursuing prosecution is because of the lack of mental acuity of the President of the United States. And this disastrous press conference-- COLLINS: But it's also because he cooperated. STEFANIK: No. No. It's specifically because-- COLLINS: So, do you agree to have-- STEFANIK: It's specifically because-- COLLINS: --having classified documents is bad? STEFANIK: --of the mental acuity. That was pointed out in the document. That's why you saw a panicked White House, forced out a doddering, unfit President of the United States, for a disastrous press conference, to trying to clean it up. And it only did more damage. The reality, Kaitlan, is Donald Trump is going to win this November. And Democrats are spiraling out of control, because they see that Joe Biden continues to plummet. His polls are going to go down much further tomorrow, based upon that horrific press conference today. And it's selective prosecution. The fact that it's not even a slap on the wrist, when the prosecutor himself, the Special Counsel himself? COLLINS: I think it's a slap on the wrist. But don't you-- STEFANIK: It is not slap on the wrist, when they specifically say-- COLLINS: --don't you think that if Donald Trump-- STEFANIK: --we are not pursuing that prosecution. COLLINS: But they talked, you know, a big part of this is that President Biden went and sat down with him, for two days, over the course of two days. Obviously, that's the interview that you're talking about, where they talked about his age. Donald Trump hasn't cooperated. Don't you just think if he had cooperated he could be-- STEFANIK: Because it's a witch-hunt. COLLINS: --in the same situation? STEFANIK: This is at the behest of Joe Biden. It's at the-- COLLINS: But if you -- don't you think he could-- STEFANIK: No. No. No. First of all there is a difference, here. COLLINS: --be in the same situation as President Biden? STEFANIK: President Trump has -- according to the Presidential Records Act, he has declassification authorities. Joe Biden does not have that, when he was Vice President of the United States. Joe Biden also had classified documents, when he was a sitting senator. That does not -- that is not covered by the Presidential Records Act. So to say-- COLLINS: I've read the Presidential Records Act. It also doesn't give Trump the authority to just take documents and keep them in a ball room in Mar-a-Lago. STEFANIK: This was a raid on Mar-a-Lago, Kaitlan, versus working with Joe Biden and saying he willfully broke the law, but refusing to prosecute. COLLINS: But that's my point. STEFANIK: It is selective prosecution. COLLINS: That is my point. STEFANIK: It is selective prosecution. COLLINS: Because Trump did not hand over the documents-- STEFANIK: No. COLLINS: --for more than a year. STEFANIK: It is selective prosecution from the DOJ. COLLINS: Jim Trusty could tell you that. He just-- STEFANIK: From Joe Biden's DOJ-- COLLINS: --he was on that team. STEFANIK: --ordered by Merrick Garland, not to prosecute against Joe Biden, even though it specifically found that he willfully broke the law. And on top of that the reason-- COLLINS: It was an independent Special Counsel. [21:10:00] STEFANIK: --the reason why they're not prosecuting is because they say he's mentally unfit, to put in front -- to pursue that. That is unheard of. And it is selective prosecution. And it's why people inherently know, across this country, if your last name happens to be Biden or Clinton, you get to live by a different set of rules than every day average Americans COLLINS: I think Hunter Biden would disagree with that. And I will note Robert Hur is a-- STEFANIK: Hunter Biden got a sweetheart deal. Let's talk about that. COLLINS: He's been indicted by the -- no, no. STEFANIK: Let's talk more about the corruption of the Biden family. COLLINS: Hunter Biden was indicted. And he's got a Special Counsel. This was a Special Counsel, who made this decision. STEFANIK: And then got a sweetheart deal from Joe Biden's DOJ. COLLINS: But I want to -- I want to talk about you, because I think, in a lot of your public appearances, and your public comments, and the resolutions that Republicans are introducing on Capitol Hill, that you're a part of, people want to know if you're auditioning, to be Donald Trump's Vice President. Have you handed over any documents, or been a part of any vetting process, with the Trump team yet, regarding that? STEFANIK: I'm proud to be one of the top surrogates for President Trump. I voted for President Trump in 2016. I was proud to work with him. I've worked with him on his impeachment defense team, when the first witch-hunt started against him, perpetrated by the Democrats and Adam Schiff. And I'm proud to be a top surrogate. I would proud to serve in a future Trump administration. But we have a lot to do. I have a lot of responsibility, as the House Republican Conference Chair, and most importantly, as the Representative for New York's 21st Congressional District, giving them a seat, at the highest level. And we're focused on the issues that matter to the American people. The border crisis, which is raging across our country. House Republicans passed a border security bill. Joe Biden has failed. In fact, he has caused this border crisis. COLLINS: Well also, I mean, the Republicans on -- in the Senate. STEFANIK: We passed a border bill. We passed a border bill. COLLINS: Right. One that was never going to pass a Democratic-led-- STEFANIK: We passed a border bill. And you and I both know how difficult it has been, historically-- COLLINS: --Senate and that the President was not going to pass. STEFANIK: --for a border bill, to come together. And we got it done. COLLINS: Yes. We just saw what happened with Republicans, on Capitol Hill. STEFANIK: But we got it done. House Republicans passed a border bill-- COLLINS: But on-- STEFANIK: --that Joe Biden opposed, Kaitlan. COLLINS: I want to talk about the Vice President. STEFANIK: The Biden border crisis is because of Joe Biden's executive actions. COLLINS: Yes. It was in turn too because-- STEFANIK: H.R.2 passed. COLLINS: --he is a Democratic president. STEFANIK: And Joe Biden opposed that. COLLINS: Right, because it was Trump-era immigration policy. But-- STEFANIK: The reason why he opposed it is because he wants a wide open border, which is what his executive actions caused. COLLINS: But he said he was willing to-- STEFANIK: That is why-- COLLINS: --to shut the border down. STEFANIK: And he has the executive authority-- COLLINS: But let's talk -- I want to talk about the Vice President talk. We're-- STEFANIK: --to do so. He has the executive authority to do so. COLLINS: You're getting off-topic. STEFANIK: No, I'm not. COLLINS: I'd like to return to my question-- STEFANIK: I'm not allowing you to just say something that's factually not true. COLLINS: --about the Vice President. STEFANIK: He has the executive authority, right now, to end catch and release. He has the executive authority, right now, to close the border. COLLINS: And Congress has the ability to pass legislation. STEFANIK: And we did. And House Republicans did. COLLINS: And let's talk about the vice presidency. Because you just said that you would be willing to serve in a Trump administration. Had you been Vice President, on January 6, 2021, what would you have done? STEFANIK: I stood up for the Constitution. I believe it was in that-- COLLINS: No. What would you have done, if you were a Vice President? STEFANIK: I would not have done what Mike Pence did. I don't think that was the right approach. I specifically stand by what I said, on the House floor. And I stand by my statement, which was there was unconstitutional overreach. COLLINS: So you would have rejected the votes? STEFANIK: There was unconstitutional overreach, in states like Pennsylvania. And I think it's very important that we continue to stand up for the Constitution, and have legal and secure elections, which we did not have in 2020. And the tens of millions of Americans agree with me, Kaitlan. COLLINS: Well, I would say the Supreme Court, in the State of Pennsylvania, said that that Republican past changes to their law was constitutional. But it's notable to hear you say, given you're in the running to be the Vice President, that you would have rejected those votes. Come this election, when Vice President Harris is in that position, would you be OK, if she rejected the votes, if Donald Trump wins? STEFANIK: Listen, we need to make sure the election is constitutional, and legal. We're talking about Democrats-- COLLINS: It was legal. STEFANIK: It was not, Kaitlan. It was unconstitutional, when there was circumventing state legislatures, unilaterally changing election law. I stand by my statement, on the House floor. And again, tens of millions of Americans agree with that statement, and have questions about the validity and legality, and constitutionality. COLLINS: Because Republicans are sowing doubt the elections. STEFANIK: No. No. No. Because the American people have rightful questions, on the constitutionality. COLLINS: Because Republicans are sowing doubt about it. STEFANIK: And let me -- let me say this, for you. When it comes to this election, we are seeing the Democrats trying to remove President Trump from the ballot. That is not constitutional. That is not a legal and safe, secure election. That's literally what's being discussed, at the Supreme Court, today. Because radical leftists can't stand the fact that Donald Trump continues to skyrocket, in the polls, and Joe Biden continues to plummet. And when you get outside of CNN? COLLINS: Let me ask you more about that. STEFANIK: If you get outside of CNN, and talk to hardworking American people, like in my district, like across this country, they want to see new leadership in President Trump. COLLINS: But can I-- STEFANIK: And that's why he's going to win. COLLINS: You deleted a statement that was on your website recently, calling January 6, a tragic day. Why-- STEFANIK: It's publicly available on all my-- COLLINS: Why was it deleted though? STEFANIK: I have all my public statements, from the current Congress. You can access all of my previous public statements from it. COLLINS: But why was it deleted from your website? STEFANIK: I only have the press releases, from this current Congress. All of those statements are available, since I was elected on multiple social media accounts, and you can access it there, just like everything. COLLINS: So, it wasn't a retraction of what you said? STEFANIK: I have every -- no, certainly not. I have press releases, for this current Congress. And the reality is you, as a journalist, can go through all of my official social media accounts, and find all of my previous statements. COLLINS: The last thing I have to ask you about is you've referred to the January 6 defendants as hostages. As someone, who was in Israel, for several weeks, after October 7th, and met with families of real hostages, don't you find that offensive? STEFANIK: I've given those family members of hostages in Israel. We've hosted them and among House Republicans, and we continue to stand up, to make sure Israel has the right to defend itself. [21:15:00] And Kaitlan, you should be condemning the fact that the President of the United States called into question Israel, at his press conference today. Meanwhile, he misunderstood and confused the President of Egypt with the President of Mexico. But I will continue to stand up for Israel's right to defend itself. And yet, you have a President of the United States, who issued a veto threat. I stand by my statement there. And what people are seeing is an unequal Department of Justice where, on one hand, you have BLM violent rioters, who are not prosecuting-- COLLINS: You're not answering my question. STEFANIK: --who are not prosecuting. COLLINS: You're going off-topic. STEFANIK: You have BLM violent rioters, who are not being prosecuted by the DOJ. And you have non-violent individuals, who were in the Capitol, on January 6, but did not commit violent acts, who are being prosecuted by the DOJ, being held. That is unheard -- inherently un-American. COLLINS: But you draw the distinction. STEFANIK: That's inherently un-American and-- COLLINS: You draw the distinction, in the criminal defendants, and the people, who were raped and kidnapped into Gaza, correct? STEFANIK: I draw -- I draw a distinction by the DOJ, the fact that they refuse to prosecute violent rioters, during BLM. And yet, they have an unequal set of rules, and go after non-violent individuals, on January 6. CNN continues to struggle because you've continued to fail to understand the American people's frustration, with this two-tiered set of justice in this country. COLLINS: I don't think that has to do with calling the criminal defendants, hostages. STEFANIK: It has to do with a lot more than that. But that's one aspect of it. COLLINS: Congresswoman Elise Stefanik, thanks for your time, tonight. STEFANIK: Kaitlan, thank you so much. COLLINS: And of course, just ahead, we'll also speak to the Secretary of State of Colorado, Jena Griswold. She's here to weigh in, on what she heard, in today's arguments. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [21:20:00] COLLINS: More now on what happened today, in court, for Donald Trump, and what it means for the future of this case, as the Supreme Court seemed to be signaling that it is unlikely to allow the State of Colorado, to kick him off of its ballot. There are many other legal matters, looming large for Donald Trump, of course. The question of whether the Supreme Court takes up the immunity appeal. His team is expected to file their emergency appeal, by Monday's deadline. Also, the four criminal trials that await him. Here tonight, Colorado's Secretary of State, Jena Griswold. Also back with us, Ashley Allison, Doug Heye, and Elie Honig. COLLINS: Secretary, let me start with you, because we don't know how the Supreme Court is going to rule, or how soon. Hopefully we'll find out quickly on that. But what did you make of today's arguments, and what we heard, from people, like Trump's former attorney, who believe it was actually a pretty effective day for him? JENA GRISWOLD, (D) COLORADO SECRETARY OF STATE, CHAIR, DEMOCRATIC ASSOCIATION OF SECRETARIES OF STATE: Well, I think it's a significant day for democracy, where at the Supreme Court, just steps away from the United States Capitol, where congresspeople ran for their lives, where we saw our nation assaulted, and our democracy under attack. And it was so striking to me, to see Trump continue to lie, to lie about his role in the insurrection, to continue to argue, he is above the Constitution and above the law. So, I hope the justices see through his lies, and recognize that states have historically been able to keep disqualified candidates off of our ballots. COLLINS: But they seem to be making the argument, Justice Kavanaugh specifically, when it comes to democracy, the reverse of that, saying that allowing states to make this decision would be problematic. GRISWOLD: Well, I think one of the things, that is potentially problematic, is the court's focus on politics, their focus on the role of one state deciding a presidential election. But ultimately, elections are within the state's jurisdiction to run. And just like we wouldn't put a non-natural-born citizen on the ballot, we also believe that oath-breaking insurrectionists -- insurrectionists are not qualified. COLLINS: Elie, what was your thought of that, given the arguments that you heard, also from the plaintiffs? ELIE HONIG, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NY, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Yes. I wonder if you picked up on what I picked up on, listening to the argument. It sounded to me like the justices were saying, this insurrection disqualification is different than age or residency or natural-born status, because the other three are readily ascertainable. Usually, whereas the question about whether someone engaged in insurrection, is highly variable, and can change a lot state by state. And they seem to have a concern with that. I wonder what you thought of that line of questioning. GRISWOLD: Honestly, insurrection is not something we see every single day. Some of the attorneys argued that it's an extraordinary event. And it is. I think the justices were indicating that our legal systems do not work, that rogue Secretaries of State will be able to basically throw tantrums and scream, insurrection, to keep candidates off the ballot. And I just don't think that's how it would play out. Ultimately, just like in Colorado, we had a five-day trial, at District Court. There was an appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court. And now, we're at the United States Supreme Court. And the justices have all the ability, in the world, to clearly define what an insurrection is. But that does not, I would say, I would argue, allow them to pretend that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment does not exist. It is there to protect the country from insurrectionists taking office. It's there for this situation with Donald Trump. HONIG: Was it any concern to you, Secretary, or is it any concern to you that Colorado is essentially alone, among the states, in having found that Donald Trump engaged in insurrection, and should be disqualified? Maine is sort of there. Your colleague in Maine has made that decision, but it's not in the courts. But there have been two dozen or so of these challenges, rejected in blue states, red states and swing states. Does it concern you that Colorado is sort of out on its own? GRISWOLD: No, because honestly, it is not atypical, for states to have different candidates, on the ballot. Outside of this question, about Donald Trump, this presidential primary will have a candidate who is not a natural-born citizen, on some ballots, and not on other state's ballots. Like in Colorado, we said the person is not qualified. He's not on our ballot. So, I think that's a typical thing, in election administration. And on top of that, I'm going to push back a little bit on, on your premise. Some of the courts that did not disqualify Donald Trump didn't even look at the question. And again, in a federalism, it's up to them. HONIG: Yes. You talk about standing considerations. Just one more quick question from-- GRISWOLD: We're getting -- picking the case out on political reasons. It's a political question. HONIG: Political question. Right. GRISWOLD: We're not going to adjudicate. HONIG: Some of Donald Trump's 2020 election challenges were dismissed on the same basis, however. [21:25:00] Real quick, your primary, speaking of your primary, it's Super Tuesday, May (ph) 5th. Do you think it's important for the voters of Colorado that they get an answer, from the Supreme Court before May -- excuse me March 5th? GRISWOLD: Absolutely. And on top of that, our ballots go out next week. We're a vote-by-mail for all state. We have early voting, drop boxes galore. I do think it's important that voters know if a vote for Donald Trump is going to count. I also think it's important, for the American public, to know, whether an insurrectionist can take the highest office again. COLLINS: I wonder what you think of this, because she referenced there, the politics that the court is taking into account. I mean, obviously, they've waited into many politically fraught cases before. I think Justice Clarence Thomas is the only one, on the bench, who was there during the 2000 Gore -- Bush v. Gore. ASHLEY ALLISON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER NATIONAL COALITIONS DIRECTOR, BIDEN-HARRIS 2020, FORMER OBAMA WHITE HOUSE STAFF MEMBER: Yes. COLLINS: But I wonder what you make of how they're considering it, and looking at it, through that lens? ALLISON: Well, that was my first election I ever voted in. And so, it was -- it was disappointing, to see the Supreme Court decide what I felt like the outcome of an election. And so, surprisingly, I might be in agreement with Doug, tonight, my Republican colleague here. I don't actually want the court to make this decision to take him off the ballot. I think that it will divide our country. Do I think he is an insurrectionist? Absolutely. And do I think that American people should stand up and say we don't want him? No. Unfortunately, though, the Republican Party is not there, and he likely will be the nominee. But that's why it's so important that he is defeated in November, because I don't think an insurrectionist should have the highest -- hold the highest office. I am just afraid of what will happen, if he is removed, and his base -- they have already said threatening things. And Donald Trump himself has not said he would try and stop the violence, if people got upset when -- after the last time, he was in court, in New York. COLLINS: Well, and also remarkable to hear Elise Stefanik, someone who is on the shortlist, may not ultimately be picked, to be Trump's vice president -- presidential candidate, if he wins, say that she would not have done what Mike Pence did, that she would have blocked legitimate, credible votes, that day, rejected people's valid votes, when she is certifying over at Congress, in a ceremonial role. DOUG HEYE, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST, FORMER RNC COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR: Sure. I think if we've learned one thing about Donald Trump, Ronna Romney McDaniel -- Ronna Romney McDaniel is learning this, this week, is that loyalty to Trump is a one-way street. And Donald Trump doesn't give points. He only takes them away one at a time. And so, you have to say whatever Trump -- whatever the latest Trumpy answer is, you go that route, and you go that route, to stay as long in Trump-world, as you can. COLLINS: Even if it's unconstitutional? ALLISON: That's the thing. HEYE: That's -- that's the deal that you've made with yourself. And look, every movie, book and play that we -- that we've seen on this topic tells us that when you make a deal with the devil, it comes with a price. There has been a price that a lot of people have paid so far. And obviously, others may pay that price as well. COLLINS: Did that surprise you? I mean, just-- ALLISON: Well, I-- COLLINS: --well I'm still just thinking about that moment that she-- HEYE: Well-- COLLINS: --that she just openly acknowledged that she wouldn't certify votes. HEYE: My last conversation with Congresswoman Stefanik was in her office in 2016. And she said, we got to stop Donald Trump, he's terrible. Obviously, she, like a lot of Republicans, have seen the light or changed their tune, however you want to define it. But nothing about that then surprises me. This is where the center of gravity, for the Republican Party is now. And it's unfortunate. But that's reality. ALLISON: I mean, it's not surprising. We literally saw an issue that for President after President after President, people have said we need to solve. And we got so close. Not that the bill that was proposed around immigration, this week would have solved the whole immigration problem. But we got so close, in the most conservative bill possible. And Donald Trump calls and said, nope. And it's over. And so, that's the world that we are living in, right now, that Donald Trump is literally the puppet-master, around all of these folks, who just are looking for a political future, and not for people. COLLINS: Everyone standby. Coming up next, here on CNN, we will get back to the breaking news, and go to the White House, to hear what they believe, how President Biden's impromptu news conference went, tonight. CNN's MJ Lee is there. And she'll join us, alongside Van Jones and David Urban, right after a quick break. [21:30:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK) ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: More now on President Biden's press conference, tonight, hailing the Special Counsel, for saying he will not charge him with mishandling classified documents, and tearing into him for language in his report, about his age and mental sharpness. CNN's MJ Lee asked him about it, specifically what voters make of the question. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MJ LEE, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Mr. President. For months when you were asked about your age, you would respond with the words, watch me. Many American people have been watching, and they have expressed concerns about your age. They -- they-- BIDEN: That is your judgment. That is your judgment. LEE: This is according to public polling. They express concerns. BIDEN: That is not the judgment of the press. LEE: They express concerns about your mental acuity. They say that you are too old. Mr. President in December, you told me that you believe there are many other Democrats, who could defeat Donald Trump. So, why does it have to be you now? What is your answer to that question? BIDEN: Because I'm the most qualified person in this country, to be President of the United States, and finish the job I started. (END VIDEO CLIP) COOPER: MJ Lee joins us now. Are you hearing anything, from White House officials, or sources, with the Biden campaign, about how they thought that press conference went? LEE: Yes, one White House official was actually just texting me, no one can say that isn't a man in command, after that press conference. They do generally tend to like it, when the President is sort of fired up. They think that it shows his strength. But Anderson, I think it's clear that he was kind of fuming about this, investigations, the conclusion that it drew, the way that it was conducted, some of the questions that Robert Hur asked. You saw the President get particularly worked up, when he talks about being asked about the death of his son, saying, that's none of your business. What does that have to do with all of this? And he clearly also just does not appreciate the fact that the report basically said that he was an elderly man with memory issues. You saw him get very defensive, saying that his memory is just fine. He said, I know what the hell I'm doing. And I think they're just very aware that the repeated references, in this report, to the President having memory issues, recall issues, are only just going to fuel critics, who have raised questions about his age, his mental acuity. And you saw there, in that exchange, when I started asking about that concern, shared by American -- American voters, he immediately cut in, and said, that is my opinion. To be clear, that isn't my opinion. That is something that we see consistently in public polling. [21:35:00] But yes, I think -- I think there's also the moment, where the President didn't do himself any favors, by mixing up who the President of Egypt is. He made a reference to the President of Mexico. So, all in all, I think the White House clearly wanted to get him out there, wanted him to say, in his own words, sort of a defense, of what was in the report. And I think we got just that. COOPER: Yes. MJ Lee, thank you. Joining me now, CNN's Senior Political Commentator, and former Trump campaign adviser, David Urban; also CNN's Senior Political Commentator, former Obama administration official, Van Jones. Van, did the President do himself any favors today? VAN JONES, FORMER SPECIAL ADVISER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Look, that wasn't Joe Biden at his best. But listen, you had Donald Trump, couldn't tell the difference between Nikki Haley and Nancy Pelosi. People make those mistakes. And those kinds of things happen. I think the more important thing that people are going to remember tonight, is that the Supreme Court ducked its opportunity, and responsibility, to stop this insurrectionist, from being able to take advantage of the situation. If Barack Obama had sent 10,000 Black men, to destroy the Capitol, and attack a Joint Session of Congress, Barack Obama wouldn't be in jail. He'd be on Guantanamo, right now. And we wouldn't be talking about Barack Obama, at all. We shouldn't even be talking about Donald Trump. He should be facing the same justice, as anybody else would in this country. And that's the real story tonight. COOPER: David, what is the real story, today? DAVID URBAN, FORMER TRUMP CAMPAIGN ADVISER, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Wow. Wow. I usually -- I usually agree with Van. We kind of -- kind of agree on some things. This one, we're 180 degrees out. The story tonight is that Joe Biden is non compos mentis. America sees it. The Special Counsel wrote about it. He said, and Elie talked about this before, but for the fact that he is an older, nice old man with a bad memory, they'd have probably brought charge, they'd have probably recommended charges. JONES: That's not the only reason. URBAN: But they felt a jury would -- wouldn't see that. COOPER: Well they also said he-- URBAN: No. No. Well it's one of the reasons, Van. COOPER: --the fact that he cooperated was also something that was laid-- JONES: That's the main reason. COOPER: --laid very-- URBAN: OK. But he goes -- but he goes on -- he goes out at this press conference here, and says there was no classified materials disclosed, when he's on tape talking about disclosing classified materials. I mean, it's-- JONES: Look, I -- if you are-- URBAN: He did himself way more damage. JONES: Listen, if the qualification that you now are going to stand by is how well people equip themselves, when it comes to being smart and honest, about legal situations? I think Donald Trump should be right off the map. Listen, Joe Biden did not do anything remotely as bad as Donald Trump. Donald Trump took stuff, stole stuff, hid stuff, lied about it. Biden turned the stuff over, directly. And that's why he's not being prosecuted. And again, this false equivalence-- URBAN: Van-- JONES: --between a Joe Biden, who is a law-abider, Joe Biden, who is -- who is competent, he's running the country right now, versus Donald Trump, who has memory lapses, just like everybody else, in that age group, but who also is an insurrectionist and steals stuff? It's ridiculous. URBAN: I would encourage -- I would encourage all the viewers to go read the document, read the document yourself, maybe turn to page 61, where a junior military officer, working for -- working for the Vice President, at the time, says, I don't feel comfortable with the classified material containing the notes. Please don't involve me in anything going forward with this project. Taking herself out, she said I can't argue because I'm a junior officer. There are people clearly knew where things were going wrong here. And they wanted to get themselves out of the blast zone. This is -- this is going to get worse before it gets better. COOPER: So, Van, I mean, the President obviously, look, he is who he is. He is the age he is, and the way he speaks is the way he speaks, or misspeaks sometimes. What do you see -- what does this campaign look like to you, between these two men? JONES: I don't think most Americans want to see this match-up. We've said over and over again, the vast majority of Americans don't want to see Donald Trump and Joe Biden, part three, part seven, the repeats of -- that nobody wants to see this. But it's where we are. And I got to tell you. If Joe Biden focuses on what he's been able to accomplish, which is if he, right now, if he were to retire right now, he'd be on Mount Rushmore, when you look at what he's done on climate, what he's done on pulling us out of the -- of this economic tailspin, when you look at what he's done, even on stuff people forget about, marriage equality, anti-Asian violence. You go down the list, the accomplishments of Joe Biden, with a narrow set of majorities, is extraordinary. And if you look at where he's trying to take the country, versus where Trump wants to take the country, with his revenge tour, and his promise of dictatorship? There's no contest. COOPER: David, how do you say? I mean, where? URBAN: Yes. COOPER: Yes. URBAN: I was going to say, and unfortunately the polling doesn't show that, Van. The polling doesn't show right track, wrong track. Americans believe the country is on a wrong track. They believe they're worse off now than they were four years ago. JONES: Partly because of Trump. URBAN: Biden's popularity is at a presidential all-time low. JONES: Hey, listen. URBAN: Because of Donald Trump? JONES: Yes, no, no, listen. I think you're going to be surprised. URBAN: Look-- JONES: I think -- I think -- listen, you might disagree with me on this, David. [21:40:00] I think some of this right track, wrong track stuff has to do with the level of chaos that people feel, and the fear that people feel that there's a part of the country that just seems to be going off the rails, in some kind of a almost cult like worship of somebody, who's got 91 felony charges, and looks like a runaway train toward the White House. So, I think that some of the discontent, in the country, isn't about the sitting president. It's about fear of the potential of a next President Trump. URBAN: Yes. I think you're misreading that part, Van. I think there's 75 million Americans plus-- JONES: Could be. URBAN: --that feel that the country is on the wrong track, because of the current occupant of the White House, not the previous occupant. COOPER: Well it's David, Biden was -- I mean, he was obviously criticized, for his handling of the classified documents, in the Special Counsel report. The Special Counsel, who is a former Trump appointee, also said that what former President Trump did was worse. So, I know you're saying this is bad for Biden. But is it really a game, politically, for the former President? URBAN: Look, Anderson, the reason I-- COOPER: And who by the way, is-- URBAN: --I think it's -- listen. COOPER: --I mean, he could stand trial, for this. URBAN: Right. If you're keeping score on, on the legal merits, right, I think it's a wash, right? Because the American voters are going to say, it is going to be an equivalence here. They're going to say, well, Biden had documents, people said it was bad. What this -- what this report really shines a light on is the fact that you see that the -- the current president, not remembering pretty key dates, not necessarily the situation with his son, but when he became -- when he became Vice President. When -- was I -- was I vice president then, he asks the Special Counsel. I mean, those are significant milestones-- COOPER: But David, it's a little -- it's a little-- URBAN: --in your life to remember than not remember. COOPER: I mean, was there a reason to put those details? I mean, look, in conversations, I'm like, you ask me-- URBAN: Yes. There is. Anderson? COOPER: --what year did I start, at CNN? I would stumble, or I think it was like 2001, 2002? URBAN: Anderson, I do -- I do believe -- I do believe there's a reason he put them in there. I think he put it in there, to support his claim that one of the reasons I'm not bringing -- I'm not recommending there be charges brought, when the President leaves, is because his lack of memory now is pretty bad. And it will be even worse in a year or so from now, when he's not President. And so, one of the reasons I'm not recommending there be prosecution brought is because he'll be seen as a nice, kind, older gentleman, with a bad memory. He says it clearly. COOPER: Van, did it seem gratuitous to you? JONES: It maybe seemed a little bit gratuitous. But again, I'm sitting here. And this is some kind of bizarre nightmare mirrored -- it's like a "Black Mirror" episode, where we're sitting here, talking about a president, who is literally doing the job right now. The country seems to be functioning. And meanwhile, the Supreme Court apparently is going to duck out, on the opportunity to do their job. This is the Supreme Court by the way, that when it comes to women's rights, oh, their body, is happy to throw a president in the garbage can, and attack a 100 million women, take diversity off the campuses, take voting rights away from people, gut this -- gut clean water. But when it comes time to disenfranchise one guy, who was a clear insurrectionist? They are running for the exits. COOPER: All right. JONES: Donald Trump is playing chicken with our-- URBAN: Van? It's a 9-0. JONES: --with our institutions. URBAN: It's going to be a 9-0 opinion. JONES: And they keep swarming away. COOPER: We got to go. Van Jones. David Urban. URBAN: It's going to be a 9-0 -- 9-0 opinion COOPER: Most people seem to agree with that. JONES: Yes, we'll see. COOPER: Next on that note, looking ahead, at today's historic Supreme Court arguments, the skepticism many justices exhibited, toward Colorado's case, and how they may rule, as David Urban said, is it going to be 9-0? We'll see. We'll talk to others ahead, in a moment. [21:45:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK) COOPER: During today's Supreme Court argument, Justice Samuel Alito spoke of the potential consequences, of siding with Colorado, or the former President, not just for the presidential ballot in that state, but in all 50 States. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SAMUEL ALITO JR., ASSOCIATE JUSTICE: I don't see what is gained by using this term which is used in different contexts rather than directly addressing what's involved here, which is the question of who can enforce Section 3 with respect to a presidential candidate? The consequences of what the Colorado Supreme Court did, some people claim would be quite severe. Would it not permit, would it not lead to the possibility that other states would say, using their choice of law rules and their rules on -- on collateral estoppel, that there's non- mutual collateral estoppel against former President Trump. And so the decision of the Colorado Supreme Court could effectively decide this question for many other states, perhaps all other states. Could it not lead to that consequence? (END VIDEO CLIP) COOPER: We're joined now by Jeffrey Toobin, former federal prosecutor, and author of countless bestsellers. So, I'm hoping he knows what collateral estoppel means. Including "The Nine: Inside the" -- excuse me, the book "The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court." Also Alyssa Farah Griffin, former Trump communications White House -- White House Communications Director. So Jeff, what is Alito -- what was Alito's point there? JEFFREY TOOBIN, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR, AUTHOR, "THE NINE": Well, let's just, in terms of the argument itself. Jason Murray represented Colorado. And I would say his argument was somewhere between a calamity and a disaster. COOPER: Wow. TOOBIN: It was, everything he was selling, they weren't buying. He didn't do a bad job. COOPER: Yes. TOOBIN: It's just that every argument? Whether Trump was covered under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment? Whether Colorado had the right to do this? Whether Colorado had used the right procedures? The argument that Justice Alito was making there, it was related to an argument Chief Justice Roberts made, at another time, which was what happens with other states? Do other states feel they're bound by Colorado, and they have to throw Trump off the ballot? That's what Alito meant by collateral estoppel. Chief Justice Roberts was -- made the point, what happens when red states start throwing Biden off the ballot? I mean, is that the kind of arms race we want to start? I thought maybe Justice Sotomayor votes for Colorado. But it looked like 8-to-1, or 9-to-nothing, for me. And what it means, in real terms, is Donald Trump's going to be on the ballot, in 50 states. Period. ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN, FORMER TRUMP WH COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: And that's the gist of it. Listen, I think it's important that this decision come down quickly, but more important that the question over presidential immunity comes down quickly. I think that the country is in a bit of denial that we're having the rematch from hell that nobody wants. Seven in 10 Americans didn't want a Trump versus Biden rematch. But that is the simple reality, right now. [21:50:00] And voters have a right to know to -- well first, we need the case to be able to move forward with it. Can't till we have-- COOPER: Right. FARAH GRIFFIN: --till we have this immunity decision. But they deserve to know, before Election Day, if he's a convicted felon. And there's a possibility, with all the delay tactics, he can pull, that they very well may not. And I would also say there's also a possibility Donald Trump could be a convicted felon and still win. I think we have to be open-eyed to the weaknesses of both of these two major party candidates. TOOBIN: The immunity case, which was just-- COOPER: Yes, let's talk about that. TOOBIN: --decided by the D.C. Circuit? Was that this week? Gosh, it all happened so fast. COOPER: Yes. TOOBIN: That is, in many respects more important than this case. Because even if somehow Colorado won, the only states that would be thrown -- throwing him off, were states Biden -- Trump wasn't going to win anyway. Immunity could decide whether Donald Trump goes on trial in Washington, D.C. COOPER: How -- so what is the steps on that? TOOBIN: Well, next week, the Supreme Court is going to have to decide, whether they issue a stay. And that's really almost more important than the outcome of the ultimate appeal. COOPER: If they issue a stay, that means it's delayed? TOOBIN: That means that Judge Chutkan, who is presiding in Washington-- COOPER: Right. TOOBIN: --depending on how the stay is written, but it probably means that she can't do anything, until the Supreme Court decides the case, which would probably be June. And then, it really becomes impossible, especially if Trump is tried, in New York, as it looks like he will be, on March 25th, to stack even-- COOPER: And given the gravity of it, the Supreme Court wouldn't rule on that sooner than June? TOOBIN: They take their time. FARAH GRIFFIN: And-- TOOBIN: They don't rush. I mean. FARAH GRIFFIN: And keep in mind, the political calendar as well. July is obviously the Republican convention. There's always sort of these tendencies to not want to pursue things, in a highly political season. If this does not move quickly, it very well couldn't be solved by Election Day. TOOBIN: Before we leave the Supreme Court. Just one more point we haven't talked about yet. COOPER: Yes. TOOBIN: What in the world was Clarence Thomas doing hearing this case? His wife was intimately involved, in the issue of insurrection, which is the -- which was the subject of this. The fact that he has not recused himself, and the fact that no one can do anything about that, because the -- basically, the Supreme Court has said, unless you want to impeach us, we're free to do whatever we want? It is outrageous that he didn't recuse himself, in this case. COOPER: It is remarkable, the standards that the Supreme Court has for themselves. TOOBIN: Yes. COOPER: I mean, they apparently can receive vans and trips and all sorts of gifts. TOOBIN: It's the honor system. COOPER: Yes. Jeffrey Toobin, Alyssa Farah Griffin, thanks so much. Coming up, another huge political story, tonight. The third official contest, in the Republican presidential race, is underway, right now. Nevada's 26 delegates up for grabs, in tonight's caucuses. John King breaks it down for us, next. [21:55:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK) COLLINS: Nikki Haley got a lot of grief, this week, when she came in second, in a one-person race. That was the Republican Nevada primary. Tonight, it's the Republican Nevada caucus, which is currently underway, and where there are actually delegates at stake. Two different races. And I should note, Nikki Haley is not on the ballot, tonight. But former President Donald Trump is. And state party rules there forbid candidates from being in both. John King is here, to break down that confusion, in the caucus, if you can understand that. John, can you just explain, how Republicans got here, and what you're watching for, tonight? JOHN KING, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Right. So, let's explain the race first, in general, the big race, and then this peculiarities, let's call it that, of Nevada. We have Iowa. That's Trump. We have New Hampshire. That's Trump. He's 2-and-0. That has not happened in modern times. So now, we're out in Nevada, tonight. No votes yet. The polls there close, 10:30. So, a little more than 30 minutes from now, the caucuses will close. And we just expect to get some results pretty quickly. 26 delegates at stake. If you come back, Kaitlan, to where we are, look, the race for the nomination can be about two things. It can be about momentum. Trump has that. Or it could be about delegates. Trump has that. Very early, in the count, right now. But you see this 26 delegates at stake, tonight, in Nevada, Trump is expected to get all of them. So, he will add that to his thing. You mentioned Tuesday night. Let's just go back and look at it. There were no delegates at stake here. Donald Trump was not on the ballot. It was Nikki Haley versus none of the above, none of these candidates. She says it was meaningless. And it was, in terms of the math. In terms of that other thing, I was talking about, momentum, she hope to just see this fill in yellow, so she could say there are voters out there, who want me to be President of the United States. So this, no, it doesn't affect any delegate math. But it did not help. So again, if you come back to where we are now, one, two and three, if Donald Trump wins, the first three, wins the first three, then we go to South Carolina. And then what does Nikki Haley do from there? A flipside from 2020. Remember, Joe Biden lost the first three, and then he won South Carolina. Republican races are different. The times are different. However, if you're Nikki Haley, and Donald Trump is 3-and-0? You better win. COLLINS: So, what does that mean, if Donald Trump's getting these delegates, tonight? I mean, how much harder does that make that path, for Nikki Haley, who is still in this race, to get the nomination? KING: She's raising a lot of money, Kaitlan. She says she's going to stay in the race regardless of what happens in South Carolina. But let's take this on a day-to-day basis. You've covered campaigns. You know how it works. Just to go back in time to 2016. Remember, Donald Trump was new on the scene then. And he still won 44 of the 46 South Carolina counties. You see the lighter red? That's Marco Rubio there, and Marco Rubio down here. I'm just back from a trip to South Carolina. They like Nikki Haley. But they love Donald Trump. That's her problem. COLLINS: And so, what is her -- you're in South Carolina. You're talking to voters, as you have been, for the last several weeks. What's next for her? KING: Well, again, can she pull it off here? The biggest challenge here is just two big challenges. She has to convince a lot of people, who are planning to vote for Donald Trump, please don't do that. Reconsider my argument. I'm more electable. He has chaos. All of those things we've heard familiarly. Can she do this in the state, where she was born, where she was twice elected governor? The challenge is she hasn't been on the ballot in 10 years. And Donald Trump has won South Carolina three times since then. The 2016 primary, the 2020 general -- 2016 general election, then the 2020 general election. [22:00:00] So, can she convince enough people to change their mind? Or Kaitlan, can she, as she says, she's trying to do, get Democrats and Independents, to flood the South Carolina primary? It's mathematically possible. Historically though, it has just never happened. And if you go 0-and-4, come back to the 2024 map, if you go 0-and-4, one, two, three, four, then yes, she says she's going to go on to Super Tuesday. But just, yes, she has some money. But I mean, it's Donald Trump's party. You have to prove it isn't. Yes, the only way to prove that is by winning somewhere. COLLINS: John King, at the map, thank you. And the news continues, here on CNN. "AMERICA'S CHOICE 2024" The Nevada Caucuses, with Abby Phillip, and Laura Coates, starts right now.