Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Supreme Court Ruling Restores Trump Ballot Eligibility In Colorado & Maine On Eve Of Super Tuesday Primaries; VP Harris Meets With Israeli War Cabinet's Benny Gantz. Aired 3-3:30p ET

Aired March 04, 2024 - 15:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:01:49]

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: Finding in favor of Donald Trump, the Supreme Court says the states cannot keep him off the ballot while clarifying exactly who could. A major decision clearing the way for Trump's presidential campaign in several states. And as Trump's presidential campaign is pinching pennies, using secondhand furniture, staging smaller rallies, even keeping an eye on what kind of Uber rides aides are taking as the candidate himself faces millions in legal bills.

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: And no penny pinching here, a pre-wedding bash featuring performances by Rihanna and David Blaine. Five hundred dishes prepared by a hundred chefs and private jets and stylists for the guests, that's not even the wedding. That's the pre-wedding party. We're sparing no expense to follow these major developing stories and many more, all coming in right here to CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

KEILAR: Tomorrow is Super Tuesday. It's the biggest primary day of this election cycle and two states in that lineup, Colorado and Maine, previously disqualified former President Trump from being on the ballot.

Today, though, the Supreme Court restored his eligibility. The nine justices all agreeing that a state cannot unilaterally bar someone from running for president by invoking the 14th Amendment's insurrectionist ban. They did not, however, address whether Trump engaged in insurrection. It's a huge legal victory for the former president as he seeks a decisive win over Nikki Haley tomorrow.

We have CNN Justice Correspondent, Jessica Schneider here with us.

All right. Jess, the key takeaways here from this ruling.

JESSICA SCHNEIDER, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Yes. I mean, the key takeaway was this in the judgment. It was a unanimous ruling. All nine justices agreed that Trump could not be taken off the ballot in Colorado and other states by just a state court ruling. But then it got a little more divisive. It was a 5-4 ruling when it came to the particulars of this case.

So the majority of the five justices said that this applies to all federal officers, not just the president. And that in order to take someone off the ballot, this would require legislation by Congress really stipulating how, when, why, who could be taken off the ballot under the 14th Amendment Section 3.

So it was a little parsed. And because of that, the four justices, they agreed with the overall ruling that Trump could not be taken off the ballot. But four of them, the three liberal justices and then also Amy Coney Barrett, they said that really the Supreme Court, the majority anyway, went too far in their ruling.

It was notable, Amy Coney Barrett wrote this: She said, "The Court has settled a politically charged issue in the volatile season of a presidential election. Particularly in this circumstance, writings on the Court should turn the national temperature down, not up. For present purposes, our differences are far less important than our unanimity. All nine justices agree on the outcome of this case. And that is the message Americans can take home."

So really nodding to this idea that they know that they are at the center of a firestorm with not just this case, but of course, the one coming up in late April as regards to presidential immunity in criminal prosecutions.

[15:05:07]

KEILAR: It was interesting that she agreed with the liberal justices. It seemed like, but they wrote separate opinions as well.

SCHNEIDER: Exactly.

KEILAR: And the one from the liberal justices was more pointed.

SCHNEIDER: For sure.

KEILAR: I wonder if today's outcome - if there's anything that you can read in from that about the immunity case.

SCHNEIDER: Well, I think that when we hear the immunity case argued that April 22nd, the week of April 22nd, we still don't know the exact date yet, but I think we can really listen to the arguments. Because when we heard the arguments in this particular case dealing with the Colorado ballot decision, it really kept in line with what the ultimate opinion or judgment was, so it's hard to say.

I mean, these are two very different issues. Perhaps the immunity issue a bit more thorny and will be a lot more of a hot topic because it's going to pertain to whether or not Trump is prosecuted here in D.C.

KEILAR: Yes, that's interesting. They're kind of showing their cards during those oral arguments.

SCHNEIDER: Yes.

KEILAR: Maybe we'll see that again.

Jessica Schneider, thank you so much for that.

Let's bring in former federal prosecutor, Renato Mariotti, to talk a little bit more about this.

Notably, Renato, the justices dodging the question of whether Trump actually took part in insurrection. I think maybe we kind of expected that. But what did you think about what you read in the rulings about it?

RENATO MARIOTTI, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Very interesting, Brianna, because really they've left that finding by a Colorado state court that Trump engaged in insurrection. They left that intact. They left it standing. It has not been controverted. It's not been overruled. They essentially sidestepped that issue entirely, focusing on whether the Colorado court had the power to remove him from the ballot.

I really think that's one interesting piece here, perhaps, because that would have generated, I'd say, some controversial words in a Supreme Court decision. But really what they did focus on, in my view, is trying to prevent what I'll call a very volatile scenario, where potentially if Trump won in November, you could imagine that members of the House and Senate might try to keep him out of office, arguing that he had engaged in insurrection.

By requiring legislation, they're essentially avoiding that scenario and making the onus on Congress to work together to develop some bipartisan legislation or else essentially this particular provision in the Constitution is taken off.

KEILAR: Tough sometimes for Congress, that bipartisan legislation. They do it sometimes, but a lot of times it's tough, and I would imagine it would be on this issue. So is it clear to you how Congress would go about actually enforcing Section 3 of 14th Amendment, what that would even look like?

MARIOTTI: Yes, I have to say, Brianna, I think that essentially this was a very polite way for the United States Supreme Court to effectively render that provision inoperable. I mean, as a practical matter, I don't see the two parties in Congress coming together on this issue anytime soon.

Really what's going to have to happen is there has to be some distance from Donald Trump. Looking back in history at these moments in 20 years perhaps, when people can take a more dispassionate view of this era before Congress comes together to draft some sort of legislation that would determine when and if someone is ineligible to serve in the ballot.

KEILAR: Yes, rendering this ineffective. That's a very interesting observation.

Renato, appreciate you. Boris?

SANCHEZ: Let's discuss the Supreme Court decision with the chairman of the Colorado Republican Party, Dave Williams. Dave was in favor of keeping Donald Trump on the ballot. Thanks so much for being with us this afternoon. Obviously, your arguments, your view of this case prevailed. I'm wondering what your reaction is.

DAVE WILLIAMS, CHAIRMAN, COLORADO REPUBLICAN PARTY: Relief. Ultimately, voters should get to decide the candidate they want to vote for and choose and not unelected bureaucrats or judges, so this was the right call and I'm grateful for it.

SANCHEZ: Dave, so the majority here ruled that power to disqualify candidates, as you alluded to, candidates from federal offices lies with Congress, not with the states. I'm curious if you see a way in which this decision ultimately could wind up unintentionally infringing on states' rights. Do you see an opening there?

WILLIAMS: I mean, it's hard to imagine that the - that this would come up ever again, especially given the novelty of the legal theories involved. But I think the Supreme Court got it right, that if you're going to disqualify someone under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, then you got to do it through congressional action and the majority ruled that way and we're grateful for them.

[15:10:01]

SANCHEZ: Do you think that the decision now puts the issue of states disqualifying federal candidates to rest?

WILLIAMS: Yes, absolutely. This result, this decision has national effect and I suspect that Illinois, Maine and other places looking at this are going to have their litigation dismissed and rightfully so. Again, we need the voters deciding this, not anyone else.

SANCHEZ: It appears that the secretary of state in Maine has already re-established Donald Trump as a candidate on that primary ballot. But I understand that there are folks seeking other avenues, especially in Congress, trying to tie Donald Trump and his actions surrounding January 6th to the 14th Amendment. I'm wondering what your message is to those folks.

WILLIAMS: I think it's going to backfire. It has been backfiring. I think most people are ready to just be able to vote their conscience at the ballot box and we don't need to have any other election interference with this. Let the people decide between Joe Biden and Donald Trump, and that will settle it.

SANCHEZ: When it comes to what actions Congress could take, do you think that they should address this gray area when it comes to whether the 14th Amendment is self-executing? It seemed like there was some disagreement on the court on just how far that idea goes.

WILLIAMS: It certainly doesn't hurt for Congress to provide more clarity, but Congress has provided a solution. Jack Smith was able to pursue charges against Donald Trump on insurrection. He chose not to. It's pretty much moot. I mean, Congress has provided a way and just because Democrats don't like the current set of solutions doesn't mean we need to be re-litigating this every step of the way. Let the people decide.

SANCHEZ: Are you disappointed that the court didn't address the insurrection claims? They stopped short of weighing in on that.

WILLIAMS: I mean, it would have been great for them to address it and reverse the district court's findings. But at the end of the day, I think the people are smart enough to know that that was a politically charged ruling from the beginning and I think they're ready to just vote on the merits of the of the policies that Donald Trump's putting forward.

SANCHEZ: I am curious to dig into your thinking here because you've argued that January 6th wasn't an insurrection. I'm not sure that I've heard in my research that I've heard you specifically answer what you think would have happened had the people that reached the Capitol actually succeeded in getting their hands on the ballots or the people that were chanting hang Mike Pence if they had gotten their hands on the vice president. What do you think would have happened?

WILLIAMS: Well, I'm not entirely sure what would have happened. Obviously, there were bad actors on that day. There are people who broke the law, vandalized and harmed others, and they should be prosecuted. But by and large, that was not an insurrection, certainly a riot. And we're just thankful that those who are going to be held accountable will be held accountable.

SANCHEZ: I guess, Dave, I don't understand how them trying to undo the will of the people by reaching for the area where lawmakers were certifying the 2020 election, it was clear what their intent was. How is that not insurrection?

WILLIAMS: Well, I mean, this was debated in district court, even the Supreme Court, I think, both in the Colorado, but also a little bit in the Supreme Court. This definition of insurrection was a bit nebulous, for sure. But this wasn't an insurrection, it wasn't organized. There was no mass effort to try and disrupt the certification process. But I think people do recognize there were those who broke the law and they should be held accountable and that's - they're going to have their day in court, due process will win out.

SANCHEZ: Dave Williams, we appreciate the time. Thanks.

WILLIAMS: Yes, take care.

SANCHEZ: Coming up, Vice President Kamala Harris meeting with Israeli war cabinet minister Benny Gantz as she doubles down on calls for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. Why the Israeli government isn't on board with this visit.

Plus, Donald Trump's presidential campaign keeping a tight leash on the money being spent on hotels, meals, even Uber rides as the former president faces staggering legal expenses.

And later, Haiti declaring a state of emergency after armed gangs stormed two of its largest prisons, letting thousands of inmates escape. Those stories and much more coming up on CNN NEWS CENTRAL. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:19:07]

SANCHEZ: Happening now, Vice President Kamala Harris is meeting with Israeli war cabinet member Benny Gantz. The high level talks come as the U.S. pushes Israel to agree to a temporary ceasefire with Hamas.

Now, before that meeting, the Vice President shared the message that she plans to deliver. Let's listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAMALA HARRIS, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The President and I have been aligned and consistent from the very beginning. Israel has a right to defend itself. Far too many Palestinian civilians, innocent civilians have been killed. We need to get more aid in. We need to get the hostages out. And that remains our position.

And I will tell you that it is important that we all understand that there - we're in a window of time right now where we can actually get a hostage deal done. We all want this conflict to end as soon as possible and how it does matters.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[15:20:00]

SANCHEZ: CNN's MJ Lee is live for us at the White House. MJ, what more is the White House saying about this meeting?

MJ LEE, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Boris, this meeting really could not come at a more critical time in the Israel-Hamas war for a number of reasons. One, of course, is that the humanitarian crisis continues to pose serious concerns for the United States, so much so that, as you saw over the weekend, the U.S. has started airdropping aid, including food to the people that are in Gaza right now who are suffering immensely.

We are also seeing, of course, the growing calls for a ceasefire, including from the President himself, who has started saying that there needs to be an immediate six week temporary ceasefire as a part of that hostages deal that U.S. officials have been working on for weeks. And then there is the Biden-Netanyahu relationship that has been fraught and complicated at times and has been out in the open for the public to see over the course of this war, just how complicated and fraught that relationship has been.

And we know for a fact that the Gantz's visit to Washington was not exactly endorsed by Prime Minister Netanyahu and has ruffled feathers within that government. So it has the potential to further inflame some of those tensions that exist between the Biden administration and the Netanyahu government.

The Vice President's comments that we saw over the weekend were so stark and probably some of the starkest that we had seen from a senior U.S. official, both in terms of calling for that immediate temporary ceasefire, but also because it went into just such graphic detail about the suffering that we are currently seeing in Gaza. This is a little bit of what the vice president had to say yesterday.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HARRIS: We have seen reports of families eating leaves or animal feed, women giving birth to malnourished babies with little or no medical care and children dying from malnutrition and dehydration. Our hearts break for the victims of that horrific tragedy. And for all the innocent people in Gaza who are suffering from what is clearly a humanitarian catastrophe.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, that's it.

HARRIS: People in Gaza are starving.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.

HARRIS: The conditions are inhumane.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEE: As far as that ceasefire hostages deal is concerned, a senior administration official saying over the weekend that the ball is now in Hamas' court. And we also, of course, heard the President saying just before the weekend that he is still hopeful that a deal can be reached before Ramadan. Boris?

SANCHEZ: MJ Lee, live for us from the White House. MJ, thanks so much. Brianna?

KEILAR: Also today, the U.N. Special Envoy on sexual violence and women says there is "clear and convincing information" that hostages taken into Gaza on October 7th were subjected to rape and there is reasonable grounds to believe sexual violence is ongoing.

Let's turn now to CNN National Security Analyst and former Deputy Director of National Intelligence, Beth Sanner. Beth, your reaction to this report, does this change hostage and ceasefire negotiations as well?

BETH SANNER, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: I don't really think it changes very much for most of us. This is exactly what most of us feared and suspected and it's just been a matter of time to collect that evidence. And I think it's really good that the U.N. has come out and said this and maybe it would help sway a little bit of the international public opinion view about Hamas, because it is and remains a terrorist group that is capable of just enormous atrocities.

KEILAR: And also today, UNRWA, which is the U.N. Agency for Palestinian refugees who employed a dozen Palestinians who are accused, credibly, according to U.S. intel of participating in the October 7th massacre, is now accusing Israel of detaining and torturing some of its staffers to coerce them into making false confessions about the agency's links to Hamas. How are you viewing this allegation?

SANNER: Brianna, I feel like so much of this war is he said, she said. It's not a very good comparison, but we hear just such starkly different views from both sides. And I have a feeling that in most cases, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. And I think that it's really important for all of us to wait for investigations like we have in this U.N. case for evidence to be gathered and for people not to jump to conclusions, so we can see how these things come out. But we absolutely need all of them to be investigated.

[15:25:03]

KEILAR: I do want to turn now to this White House meeting with Benny Gantz. The White House is describing this as a routine meeting. If routine is hosting Netanyahu's chief rival, I guess, how do you see the visit?

SANNER: I think this is fairly unprecedented in some ways. It is a - the - Gantz is absolutely the most potent rival of Netanyahu. He only joined this war cabinet out of loyalty and responsibility for the state of Israel. The two have never gotten along. And, you know, if Gantz, if there was an election today, Gantz would win.

So Netanyahu's not very excited about Gantz coming to the United States and has told the Israeli embassy, you cannot support this visit or attend any of these meetings.

I think it's kind of a risky move in some ways by the Biden administration and I wonder if it was done more out of a sense of pique over Netanyahu really being such a difficult partner or whether it was kind of just not really thought of. But in some ways, this is the United States really wading into the middle of the most severe political rivalry in Israel and I'm not sure that that's a good thing. We'll see if he can deliver. I mean, I have real doubts.

KEILAR: Well, and that's my other question. There's also this domestic issue, right? This is an issue that is fraught for Biden when it comes to his domestic audience. And perhaps he is signaling a break with Netanyahu for his domestic political audience as well. But what could the effect be when it comes to, say, hostage discussions or U.S.- Israeli relations at a pivotal time?

SANNER: Well, we've seen already that Netanyahu has overruled the war cabinet in a couple of instances in terms of the negotiations, not sending the negotiating team and such. So I think this might make it a little harder for Biden to communicate with Netanyahu, but that communication hasn't been great recently anyway.

So I do think it's going to, you know, potentially complicate things. But I also want to remind people that Benny Gantz is no dove. He's actually run to the right, more hard line than Netanyahu on Gaza over many years. And he did issue a threat to Hamas this past week saying, if you don't sign up for this hostage deal, we are going to proceed with this war, including an attack on Rafah. So pragmatic, but not any different than almost all Israelis and in wanting this war to continue. KEILAR: Yes, it's a very good point.

Beth Sanner, thank you for that.

Belt tightening for Trump, the former president's campaign is cutting costs as they prepare for what could be a long and expensive road to November. How even the smallest expenses are under the microscope.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)